I have a feeling the Mormons are going to get slandered a lot more as the elections get nearer.
?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm...
Small fish with big mouths. It's not a big deal.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not sure why you brought this up, but it is hardly worthy of news. From what I gather, he didn't impress a lot of those in attendants. He came off as a biggot of the most lowly of kinds. It can't do much more than help Romney.
More and more I believe that McCain's run for Pres. is finished. The reason his poll numbers are still up (they continue to fall) is mere name recognition. Now why Gilliani is national poll front runner I just don't understand. He isn't special or hold to the important social stances (although he is trying to at least sound moderate on those) that Republicans hold in large numbers. As for the Thompson that isn't in the race yet? He is a contender because many undecided Repubs are grasping for straws, but his actual record is very similar to Romney in past and present policy statements.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hey at least he accused Mormonism of things I had yet to hear before.
I'd actually be interested in hearing why he'd think that the church supports Hamas.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I read somewhere the other day that accused Romney of expecting a cadre of virgins in the next life. Now that's just sad.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
BlackB, because the official Church actually doesn't hate Muslims and often works with some Islamic governments. Therefore, because the Church holds no political postions on Islam they support Hamas. I don't know if that is the excuse he used, but it is something that I could easily hear someone say. Never mind that the Church has had a relationship with some in Israel as well, and like may Christians holds Jews in high religious respect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, sure - if you're not officially against the enemy, then you're for the enemy. If you want to be friends, you have to hate everyone they hate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
IIRC, the Hamas accusation is linked to Mormon efforts with Islamic Relief Worldwide to help earthquake victims - an IRW operative was accused of helping Hamas, and the attempt is to tie that incident to the Mormon Church.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Plus "Mormon" and "Muslim" are both six letter words that start with "M." How should anyone be expected to distinguish between them!?!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Well, sure - if you're not officially against the enemy, then you're for the enemy. If you want to be friends, you have to hate everyone they hate.
You've got to be carefully taught!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Occasional: I could have probably guessed that, I am tired this morning and didn't really commit any thought to the solution, thanks for doing my work for me. It just seemed sort of funny to have a church school in Jerusalem (dedicated to Jewish studies) but support Hamas. Though I suppose incompetance has authored stranger contradictions then that.
Dag: I think I remember that now that you mention it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
You evil Mormons can't fool me. I read Burned, man, I know -all- the facts! *huff huff*
On my mission, one of my areas had a -very- interesting cassette called "Mormonism on Islam" in the Ward library. It made for fascinating listening.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
C'mon...Mormons, Muslims...Moroni, Muhammed...all start with an M.
Coincidence? I think not!
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Well you know Those Mormons just want Money- Look at what they've done to Salt Lake City!
They're in league with the FreeMasons to take over the world, along with the Muslims, just so they can destroy good Christian values.
This whole conspiracy is around the letter M- the symbol of Mary, the virgin Mother of Jesus that the Holy Roman Catholics worship!
See how it fits all in there!
Hmm... McCain... I wonder....
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
On a serious note- McCain's talk was utterly ridiculous, absurd, and despicable. I think that's the worst one I've heard about the LDS church. (Of course I'm not LDS- the only ones I've heard is not much in real life, but mostly from the 'rack)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I bet McCain is a closet Mormon. That's going to cause a scandal when that comes to light! The Inquirer is going to run pictures of McCain sneaking out the back of the Temple in Salt Lake City... in a speedo.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:A Florida televangelist, Bill Keller, told followers recently that a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.
quote:ent from Providence, the mailing alleged that church members believe in multiple gods, likened its founder, Joseph Smith, to the Islamic prophet Mohammed, and raised alarm about future directives Mormons may be required to follow.
Oh. My. Stars. Future directives that Mormons may be required to follow? For the record, every one of the bolded words is objectionable in and of itself.
*sigh* People are idiots.
quote:One note sent to South Carolina voters warned of the "dark suspicions" about Mormonism, telling recipients to "trust your instincts" because "Mitt Romney has a family secret he doesn't want you to know," Salon, the online magazine, reported recently. The "secret" was the long-acknowledged fact that Romney has polygamous ancestors, Salon reported.
Oh yeah - we should definitely disqualify everyone who had is related to anyone who did anything shocking our time (never mind if it was legal at the time) any time within the past 150 years.
On the upside, the only "scandal" in Romney's life isn't even from his life.
I am not particularly fond of Romney as a candidate, but attacking him for his religion is ticking me off.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I am waiting for the baby eating tabloids.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: On a serious note- McCain's talk was utterly ridiculous, absurd, and despicable. I think that's the worst one I've heard about the LDS church. (Of course I'm not LDS- the only ones I've heard is not much in real life, but mostly from the 'rack)
"McCain's talk"? What talk? The article was about a county campaign chairman who made comments at a meeting he was attending.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
OKay- sorry. Didn't read the article- just was reading the thread!
Oops!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: I am waiting for the baby eating tabloids.
Oh I've got the lowdown on that. Romney does not eat babies, nope, he can't stand the taste.
He does however feed babies to other babies.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The thing is, this was much worse that the other comments of the other candidates' representatives. Yet McCain has been the only one NOT to apologize; ever. The others I can shake my head with amusement. McCain just makes me think he holds the same or hopes they will at least do damage.
As for treating women like the Taliban? Well, sure. By the same criteria, so do Catholics and Baptists.
[ June 22, 2007, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The article mentioned that McCain's campaign apologized.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He does however feed babies to other babies.
Wouldn't this require some kind of baby processor? Unless, of course, "baby formula" is actually its own recipe! Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ?: This is an interesting article about Senator John Mccain's county chairman Chad Workman's comments about Mormons. Romney's Religion
That's disgusting.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Wouldn't this require some kind of baby processor? Unless, of course, "baby formula" is actually its own recipe!"
Now I'm going to hurl. Spew chunks! Blow my cookies! Chunder!
pick the word/phrase of your choice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:He does however feed babies to other babies.
Wouldn't this require some kind of baby processor? Unless, of course, "baby formula" is actually its own recipe!
Whats more gross then three dead babies in a garbage sac?
One dead baby in three garbage sacks.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm a little surprised this guy isn't off the campaign.
But, I mean, I am starting to wonder how they got hold of the top-secret members-only tithing slips that they keep in the locked drawer of the clerk's office, with "Hamas" instead of "Humanitarian Fund" on that line. I was assured my donations would remain confidential...
Oh, well. *goes to put on her burka*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh good grief. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Was that at the dead baby joke or me?)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yes, to be fair he did apologize. I didn't read that until after my comments. Still, I am not a fan of McCain at all as a candidate or as a public figure. He gets too spiteful and angry too easily.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(*grin
Occasional, there is just a tad of irony in that last bit.)
Thank goodness for men like Romney who are willing to take it on the chin. If it doesn't work out for him, then at least it will (hopefully) be better for the next Mormon with a presidential bid in the US.
Religious bigotry is ugly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't decided if I like Romney yet. His change on abortion is convenient to his new political ambitions. This doesn't mean it's not honest, but it does make me more suspicious of it than I would be if it was politically inconvenient for him to have done so.
I've only seen second-hand stuff about his changes on abortion and civil same sex marriage, mostly from detractors, so I need to dig into primary source material before the Virginia primary.
And that's on top of all the other research I need to do about all the other issues and all the other candidates.
I feel like I'm behind in political research, but we're still more than 6 months from the first primary. It's the pace of the campaign that's out of sync, not me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was at the baby thing - not you, KQ. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"there is just a tad of irony in that last bit." How so?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, good, I didn't think my humorometer was off that much.
I did have to restrain myself to keep from telling my favorite dead baby joke, though. (When my dad got sick of elephant jokes he taught us the dead baby jokes that were popular when he was in school-- and promptly regretted it.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Eh, this doesn't change my opinion of McCain or Romney. I don't like either of their political positions on almost everything.
So, if they want to level silly attacks at eachother, I say let them!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm a little surprised this guy isn't off the campaign.
According to the link he "discussed an article" that made the allegation that the LDS church supports Hamas. While still kind of tacky, "Did you see such-and-such in XYZ magazine" is not quite the same as "Hey, did you know that Mormons do ___."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, given how popular polygamous marriage was (and in some parts, still is) across the world, it would be hard to find anyone running for president who doesn't have polygamy in their family tree. I mean, good grief - what a ridiculous "family secret" to expose.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm a little surprised this guy isn't off the campaign.
According to the link he "discussed an article" that made the allegation that the LDS church supports Hamas. While still kind of tacky, "Did you see such-and-such in XYZ magazine" is not quite the same as "Hey, did you know that Mormons do ___."
quote:Workman questioned whether Mormons were Christians, discussed an article alleging that the Mormon Church helps fund Hamas, and likened the Mormons' treatment of women to the Taliban's, said participants, who requested anonymity to discuss the meeting freely.
One participant summed up Workman's argument this way: "The fundamental flaw of Mitt Romney . . . was that he was Mormon, not because he thinks this way or that way on one issue."
To me, that says he discussed the article, and then likened the treatment of women to the Taliban's, and people came away with a message that Mormon=bad president.
It's the kind of thing that many candidates would immediately want someone off the campaign for. I've seen people resign public office, lose jobs, and resign from organizations for remarks of similar quality.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: According to the link he "discussed an article" that made the allegation that the LDS church supports Hamas. While still kind of tacky, "Did you see such-and-such in XYZ magazine" is not quite the same as "Hey, did you know that Mormons do ___."
But in the context of the other things he said, it seems likely that he brought up the article because he agreed with the message and wanted to promulgate the idea. But this is just based on my interpretation of the summary of the account of some people who were there, so I admit I could be off.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if they want to level silly attacks at eachother, I say let them!
The first issue I have with this is that McCain and Romney aren't attacking each other in these examples.
The attack seems to be entirely one-directional, and it not coming from McCain, but from those who support his campaign.
Second: The attacks are not attacks on Romney himself, but on Romney's religion. Further, the attacks are fueled by a misunderstanding (or misinterpretation) of Mormon theology. Even further, some of the attacks are on Mormons themselves-- claims that we treat women like the Taliban, or that we intentionally fund Hamas.
Third: Attack campaigns do harm to political discourse and civility in America, no matter who participates in them. Attack campaigns erect barriers to solutions, by casting the opponent in such an irrational light, that no work can be done with them.
It's not just a matter of them taking each other out-- if it is an attack campaign, it damages ALL political discourse to a degree.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Well said, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That said-- I'm not concerned that there will be an outpouring of hatred against Mormons, even if the attacks continue.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well I finally found a place, I am loath to link to because of its overly anti-Mormon (heck, anti-anything-but-my-brand-of-Christian) attacks, that discusses the relationship. It's a blog called "Independant Conservative" if you want to try and find it.
Basically, it says because Mormons (and others) gave to a relief agency where some of its members have questionable ties to Hamas then they are all in evil bed together. I can just hear what this person would say about Mormons because they also give to Catholic charities. What is really unnerving is he claims the only Christian thing to do is to give to Christians only. If you give to non-Christians, it should only be as part of evangilizing those heathens you are apparently helping - although its questionable that you should be helping them at all.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Occasional, do you still believe that Mormon bigotry is worse from the left than from the right? I grant that we'd only be absolutely sure if Romney were chosen as the Republican candidate, and saw what the Democrat opponent did, but I have to think that the two incidents here (the supporter speech, and the mailing) are worse than anything the left has done thus far.
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Over time I have come to the conclusion they are both just as bad. The only difference is that the Left attack Mormons as a foil against all religious people. Often times there is no distinction between what the Left says and what the Right says. They often agree with each other in ways that are really suprising. So, the best that can be said is that they are equally as bigotted and questionable.
Just remember, the guy who wouldn't shake Romney's hand because he was a Mormon was on the left.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fair enough. Just was interested, given your prior threads. I hope you didn't feel it was a trap (it wasn't). Thanks for the answer!
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "there is just a tad of irony in that last bit." How so?
The juxtaposition of the following:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The thing is, this was much worse that the other comments of the other candidates' representatives. Yet McCain has been the only one NOT to apologize; ever.
followed shortly by this:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Yes, to be fair he did apologize. I didn't read that until after my comments.
and, in the same post,
quote:He [McCain] gets too spiteful and angry too easily.
Whereas you had just gotten angry with McCain for something which you then had just acknowledged that he hadn't done, and that you realized this because you actually posted before you read the piece.
No biggie. Just kinda cute.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Bokon, the disconnect you see with my past opinions is the kinds of attacks. The Right has always been very vocal anti-Mormon, but it hasn't been political. Whenever the Left has said anything it has always been political. From that perspective I still think the Left is worse; although recent examples have put a question on that premise.
For instance, the MSM has quoted right leaning people they interview, but very few actual public statements come directly from the right anti-mormons. Therefore, it comes off as more of the news making a story rather than a story actually existing. Those who have actually printed anti-mormon comments have been the left without reporter interference. Now, these right leaning comments are disturbing, but they are basically below the radar internal. I don't belief they would have the effect of going beyond the regional area they started with. With the MSM broadcasting these things as if a messanger, I wonder if they extend farther or length of time than they otherwise would have.
Now, as far as the amount of them recently uncovered that brings up an equalization. The Right is going low key, where the Left is going open and direct. The Right has also starting becoming more political rather than just religious. Like you said, time will tell.
[ June 22, 2007, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sending thousands of direct mailings is low-key? I'll agree it's under the radar, or would have been, if it hadn't been for those darn leftist Salon kids! That said, the whole point of ANY news media is to take something that happened somewhere inherently local, and let others in non-local places hear about it. So on the face of it, I don't see it being insipid, as you seem to.
You assume that since the MSM airs anti-mormon right-wingers, that they must be tacitly agree with the message, if not the delivery. However, couldn't it just as easily be seen as the MSM trying to show the obvious idiocy of said folks? I also am more worried when things go under the radar, as they are less likely to be addressed. In that sense, the MSM is doing a favor to Mormons, by notifiying them of stupid comments, that they can then appropriately respond them.
Although maybe I am confused by this bit. I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly (or rather, I have several possible ways to take it):
quote:For instance, the MSM has quoted right leaning people they interview, but very few actual public statements come directly from the right anti-mormons. Therefore, it comes off as more of the news making a story rather than a story actually existing. Those who have actually printed anti-mormon comments have been the left without reporter interference.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I mean, it seems that some Right anti-Mormons would have no voice if the MSM wasn't quoting them. Meanwhile, the Left is very open and public about their feelings without having anyone needing to quote them to get the words out.
"You assume that since the MSM airs anti-mormon right-wingers, that they must be tacitly agree with the message, if not the delivery."
No, what I assume is that the MSM is trying to bring the subject up so that they can make sure a wedge is driven between two otherwise conservative groups. Divide and conquer basically.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So I guess I'm still confused... They are both using the same medium to get their beliefs out, but because the MSM is apparently left-wing, this reflects more poorly on the left than the right? Or are you saying that no right-winger has written an anti-mormon editorial?
Or that if the left only mentioned their feelings on Mormonism in mailings and through low-level operatives, like the right-wing, they wouldn't be as bad?
Personally, as I said before, I'd find that more insidious, like push=polling tactics and the like.
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Or are you saying that no right-winger has written an anti-mormon editorial?"
Probably more this than anything else.
"Or that if the left only mentioned their feelings on Mormonism in mailings and through low-level operatives, like the right-wing, they wouldn't be as bad?"
Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic. Now, as I mentioned, what has been uncovered has made me more on the side of equal biggotry, but before that the Right hadn't done anything to qualify my opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I think there's plenty of ignorance and villiany to go around.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Okay, that's cool. I have to strongly disagree, but that's life
Thanks again!
-Bok
EDIT: That was to Occasional, not kat.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic.
Ok, I'm joining this late so forgive my ignorance.
I realize you are generalizing here Occasional, but as a "Left" guy and Mormon myself, I'd like to point out that the Majority Leader is Mormon. Andy maybe its just my blind-eye, but I don't see Left facing folks bashing Mormons. I'll give you the Religion in general view, but not specifically Mormons. Now if Romney gets nominated from the Right side, I totally expect the Lefts to bash the Mormon angle. Thats the sad state of politics as we know it. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What he said.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic. Now, as I mentioned, what has been uncovered has made me more on the side of equal biggotry, but before that the Right hadn't done anything to qualify my opinion.
I would support Harry Reid. Lots of folks on the left do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Andy maybe its just my blind-eye, but I don't see Left facing folks bashing Mormons"
Honestly, I think it is your blind-eye. Go to Left leaning blogs about Romney and Mormonism and I bet you will be sick to your stomach.
I am trying really hard not to break the rules here and link to anti-Mormon/whatever sites. That is something I think can be done with news stories, but not other less worthy places. This discussion, however, is really making me tempted to do a comparison listing.
"Considering that the Left wouldn't support most Mormons anyway I wouldn't find it as problematic."
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
What intrigues me though is that some supporters of Romney continually say that a presidential candidate shouldn't be judged solely because of his religion. But, what would happen if a Muslim ran for the presidency? A Buddhist? An atheist? What about other things, such as race, gender, sexual orientation? Would people who say that still hold that attitude, or would it change? I guess I've always wondered whether people believe in statements they make merely because of the people they affect at that moment, or truly mean them.
FWIW, I agree with people who say that, as it shouldn't be a factor. If Romney's Mormon, cool for him; it won't (or shouldn't) matter or affect his judgement. I mean, I'd vote for Romney too if I didn't disagree with him on a few key "deal breaker" issues for me. He seems like one of the least shady politicians.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Hitoshi, I think that religion can be brought up IF it has something to do with politics. For instance, I think if religious beliefs will have an impact on what the Person in office will do as a politician, the question is fine. A Muslim or Jew will approach Middle East questions differently. An evangelical or mainstream Christian will have different moral ideas.
On the other hand, if it is YOUR version of God vs. THEIR version of God (is it one or many, who can go to heaven and what is heaven like, do I dip or go under), then it should be off limits. That is something for theological debates and not secular concerns.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hitoshi: link Assuming that supporters of Romney are in the conservative camp, that last column in the second column should give an idea as to what to expect for each of the categories.
Of interest to this discussion are that 75% of liberals, 77% of moderates, and 66% of conservatives are willing to vote for a Mormon. Of course, I would not feel too sorry for conservative Mormons considering that a Mormon is still has roughly twice(!) the support of say a homosexual or an atheist (among conservatives).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The latest news on Muslim charity donations. Looks like the issue is more than anti-Mormonism, but anti-Muslim as well. Right now I am not too fond of Islam and think it has become a dangerous challenge to civilization. That said, I don't think every interaction is a bad one as implied by the charity criticisms; although infultration of muslim extremists in almost every part of Muslim life makes interaction more questionable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hey at least he accused Mormonism of things I had yet to hear before.
I'd actually be interested in hearing why he'd think that the church supports Hamas.
According to this articlein yesterdays Salt Lake Tribune, it isn't a new accusation. It reports that
quote:an August, 2006, blog entry by conservative political commentator and self-proclaimed expert on "radical Islam" Debbie Schlussel claimed Mormons were "the new financiers of Islamic terrorism."
Evidently the LDS church has donated over 20 million, largely in the form of blanket, food and medical supplies, to Islamic Relief USA over the past several years.
I think it demonstrates how just about any one or in organization could get targeted if we allow our country to be swept up in anti-Islamic hysteria. Luckily the people who write this kind of thing don't have the kind of power that McCarthy had. Hopefully we won't give it to them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When I heard this snippet yesterday, besides embarassing myself in front of an active Romney booster, I had to say that Mormons sort of do treat women like the Taliban.
Of course, most of these are ways in which most conservative Christians also view women, like that if they dress immodestly, they might make someone think lustfully, and that they should only have authority over other women and children. Men and women suffer equally from our modesty requirements, which are most palpable in the summertime.
Of course, there is a cultural disconnect where in the Arab world, women are seen as the sexual aggressors, where men punish their wives by withholding sex.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just for the record, I completely disagree with pooka.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: When I heard this snippet yesterday, besides embarassing myself in front of an active Romney booster, I had to say that Mormons sort of do treat women like the Taliban.
Of course, most of these are ways in which most conservative Christians also view women, like that if they dress immodestly, they might make someone think lustfully, and that they should only have authority over other women and children. Men and women suffer equally from our modesty requirements, which are most palpable in the summertime.
Of course, there is a cultural disconnect where in the Arab world, women are seen as the sexual aggressors, where men punish their wives by withholding sex.
While I somewhat agree, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Mormons treat women like the Taliban.
I think it would be fairer to say that most modern religions are patriarchal(sp?) in nature and thus treat women as lesser, but in varying degrees.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Of course, most of these are ways in which most conservative Christians also view women, like that if they dress immodestly, they might make someone think lustfully, and that they should only have authority over other women and children. Men and women suffer equally from our modesty requirements, which are most palpable in the summertime.
I've never once heard sermons on modesty use the reasoning, "If you dress inappropriately it might make the men look at you lustfully." It has always been the reasoning, "The way you dress is an expression of your self respect and how you honor the creator who gave you your body."
As for only having authority over other women and children that is a bit of a twist on the truth if you ask me. While it is true that women are not ordained to lead the church proper, they still head auxilery organizations. Not only that they exert plenty of influence over their husbands and other men in the church. I have never heard a woman told in church, "You are a woman your views are therefore subserviant to all men." I have heard MANY times the leaders of the church exhort the men of the church to counsel in everything with their wives and treat them with respect as well as view them as equals. Abuse of women is anually decried, and when my wife came home and kicked me out the door so I could be at work earlier and thus come home earlier the last thing on my mind was, "Who is she to make me do anything?"
Javert: For me being a leader in the church or in any organization does not inherently = greater.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Javert: For me being a leader in the church or in any organization does not inherently = greater.
I meant patriarchal vs. matriarchal, not patriarch vs. subjects.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Javert: For me being a leader in the church or in any organization does not inherently = greater.
I meant patriarchal vs. matriarchal, not patriarch vs. subjects.
Oh I see, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
No problem. I'm still not sure if I spelled it right.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There was a talk about pornography by Elder Oaks a couple of years ago where he advised that women not dress in a way to be pornographic. I thought it was a pretty weird thing to say, but there are those extreme cases. I just tend to assume such people are not watching Saturday conference, so it was just ... kind of... weird. But it was also when midriffs were really big.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm trying to imagine a pornographic midriff and not having much luck.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think also I don't see the Taliban quite as overwhelmingly evil. That was part of the conversation, Britain knighting Rushdie and whether most people really think they are doing the right thing most of the time.
I quoted myself out of context, I guess. My thought on Britain was that of course I would defend their right to do that, but what were they thinking?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]
quote:
I've never once heard sermons on modesty use the reasoning, "If you dress inappropriately it might make the men look at you lustfully."
I have heard that reasoning used on several occasions although never by men. I distinctly remember lessons in Young Women's where we were told that if we dressed immodestly we could be causing men to sin. We were told that when men saw immodestly dressed women they couldn't help but feel lustful so it was our responsibility. I've also heard several women in the church complain that immodestly dressed young women are causing their husbands to lust.
Admittedly, I have heard the reasoning that our bodies are sacred and we should treat them with respect and dignity far more often and it is the only reasoning I've heard espoused over the pulpit or in writing. But I have heard the other reasoning enough times to know it isn't an anomaly.
BTW: I've always found this to be a very animalistic and dehumanizing view of men. While I understand that men are generally more easily turned on by visual stimuli than women, the idea that men have no control over this is very degrading to men.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Rabbit: I guess my point was that I have never head the, "It will make men lustful" line of reasoning posed as the REASON to avoid immodest dress. I just felt like people were listing Mormons as people who MIGHT subscribe to ideas like, "Women are the devil's tools to seduce men." and "Women ought not to orgasm because it distracts them from focusing as they ought to on their husband's pleasure."
edit: Agreed on the point of how that idea animalizes men and is degrading.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wow, I never heard the latter. And that would be very at odds with the Arab view of female sexuality, though I suppose there are muslims who are not Arab. But I'm pretty sure I could characterize an authentic Taliban as generally having an Arab view on women.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Wow, I never heard the latter. And that would be very at odds with the Arab view of female sexuality, though I suppose there are muslims who are not Arab. But I'm pretty sure I could characterize an authentic Taliban as generally having an Arab view on women.
Though the reasoning is not always uniform I have heard MANY Arab Muslims and African Muslims all state that it is not right for a woman to orgasm during intercourse.
edit: Female circumcision exists because of that belief.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I thought female circumcision existed to make sure the woman wouldn't be tempted to cheat.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I seem to recall a concern about women wearing backpack/messenger straps across the chest at BYU, but I don't remember who raised it. The issue was that this would outline the breasts and lead men to lustful thoughts.
I think Tatiana may have addressed it as a concern that went beyond the pale, but I could well be misremembering.
*goes looking
---
I have also seen the incitement of lustful thoughts being raised as a modesty concern at the Nauvoo forum, but I would neither link to there from here nor consider those fine folk as necessarily speaking as representatives of the LDS Church.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I thought female circumcision existed to make sure the woman wouldn't be tempted to cheat.
-pH
Among other things.
*Warning: Alittle disturbing comments to follow,
There is also the enhancement of the experience for the husband by stitching the vaginal opening partially closed so that its tighter.
*/Warning
Like I said the reasoning is not uniform, but the idea that women should not orgasm during intercourse is not unique to Islam but it has found a place there to an extent.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though the reasoning is not always uniform I have heard MANY Arab Muslims and African Muslims all state that it is not right for a woman to orgasm during intercourse.
I'd want to know more about those people to consider whether they would be rightfully viewed as representative of the culture, just as I'd extend the same courtesy to my friends in the LDS Church (see above).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
From the article, "Many women know nothing about their bodies, not to mention sex, and they were raised to believe sex is for men and a dirty thing," she says."
I'm a big fan of Heba Kotb.
Perhaps I should clarify though. I DON'T think the idea that women should not orgasm is in Muslim doctrine. Indeed the opposite is true as Ms. Kotb says. I think the idea is older then Islam but alot of Muslim men and women are taught it along with their religion and falsly believe it is part of the religion.
But then again I was not raised Muslim, nor am I scholar, I just have a good portion of experience living amongst them, as well as being very interested in their religion.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:"You young women, when you dress immodestly, you become pornography."
That's the provocative line in Elder Oaks's talk, from the April 2005 General Conference.
I suppose I have lots of issues with this sort of thing; firstly, what it means to 'dress immodestly' is terribly unclear. In the fall 1951 General Conference, Spencer Kimball gave a talk in which he denounced shorts as being immodest. Anyway, this sort of preoccupation with dress takes up far too much of our attention as Mormons, I think; there are more sublime things which we should be thinking about.
Secondly, and certainly the larger issue, Oaks's statement manages to both dehumanize women and implicate the entire gender in the problem - that is, it paints women as both villains and passive objects. Not to mention (as others have indicated) that it implies that Elder Oaks has given up on men controlling their own urges.
Now, to be fair, the larger talk did spend a fair amount of time discussing the problem of addiction to pornography and counseling men to control themselves; that's why this statement was so jarring. Troublingly, of course, it's been the best remembered line of the whole general conference, and has no doubt been repeated by many well-meaning Young Women leaders.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
African != Arab
Though there is a lot of concern about the practice of FGM spreading into Arab society.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Though there is a lot of concern about the practice of FGM spreading into Arab society."
last I heard, FGM was encouraged by Muhammad.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It might appear in the Hadith, but then, a lot of things appear in the Hadith. It's why they aren't the Q'uran.
I don't mean to put down the Hadith. But another way Mormons are like Muslims is passing along outrageous sounding quotes ascribed to prophecy.
[ June 25, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Javert: For me being a leader in the church or in any organization does not inherently = greater.
I meant patriarchal vs. matriarchal, not patriarch vs. subjects.
I'm not sure how that helps. I don't view a patriarchal society, whether based on a particular religion or not, as inherently valuing men over women. Nor does a matriarchal society necessarily do the reverse. (To the contrary, I recall reading an SF short where female lives are not valued much, but the very few remaining fertile males are. Even though it was a matriarchy.)
(Oh, and as far as spelling, my spellcheck approves. )
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would say the Left attacks Mormons mostly from the standpoint of tactics, especially how those tactics conflict with liberal views of things.
The Right attacks Mormons based on position, trying to differentiate Mormonism from their own beliefs and practices.
At least that's the flavor I sense from the attacks I've seen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't view a patriarchal society, whether based on a particular religion or not, as inherently valuing men over women.
The issue isn't one of VALUE. After all, if we "valued" women so much that we kept them locked in closets and dipped in Lexan to avoid any possible damage to their perfect selves, I'd wager that women would still feel oppressed.
It has nothing to do with how much a given society claims to "value" you, but instead with how much freedom -- and how many unscripted choices -- a society is willing to entrust to you.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: last I heard, FGM was encouraged by Muhammad.
He's down with Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and pretty much anyone who likes a good bowl of noodles now and again.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] While it is true that women are not ordained to lead the church proper, they still head auxilery organizations. Not only that they exert plenty of influence over their husbands and other men in the church.
How does the first sentence not equate to inequality? In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal. As such, they are oppressed. The oppression doesnt necessarily have to be overt or egregious, such as the practice of FGM. But a religion that teaches that women are not "worthy" or sanctioned by God to be in a position of authority over men is a religion that oppresses women. So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women. Pointing out the egrarious nature of some Muslims abuse of that policy seems a little hypocritical when combined with a complete denial of ones own religious policies along those lines.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You know, when I was 18 some guy tried to convince me that as an Orthodox Jewish woman I was oppressed. I laughed in his face.
I haven't gotten much more tactful in the last 15 years. And I'm still not being oppressed. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
But, Xavier, what if I ATE the FSM?
That would be bad.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women.
Pretty much all the "mainline" Christian denominations -- United Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples, United Church of Christ, ELCA Lutheran, etc. encourage full and equal participation of women in all leadership roles. So, yeah, not so much with the sweeping generalizations, please.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
And as a Catholic, I obviously oppress women.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I enjoy oppressing women about twice weekly, more if they are willing.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Rivka, I understand your reaction. You view yourself as a strong, independant woman, and this fits quite neatly into your relationship with your religion. As an Orthodox Jewish woman, you might not feel oppressed, but you cant be a ordained Rabbi(according to my limited knowledge). Whether or not you actually want to be. Why is that? So how is this statement false? "In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal."
Individual experiences notwithstanding, I believe religions that refuse to acknowledge a womans equal footing with a man are being oppressive.
Dkw, all right. Minus the sweeping generalizations, women clergy still only comprimise less than 15% of the clergy as a whole, and that mostly among Protestant denominations, right(based on old research, and I'm quite willing to admit to the #s being off)? Roman Catholicism does not allow women to be ordained, nor do most Orthodox and conservative Baptist churches. Is this not a majority? It is certainly more common now for a woman to be seen in a ordained leadership role in SOME churches than it was 40 years ago. But again, individual experience notwithstanding, how do you think MOST churches handle the idea of female leadership? Would you say that acceptance of official female leadership is part of the majority of religions basic doctrines? (I'm fully well aware of how well educated you probably are on this particular subject, being a female minister, so please dont take this as a "challenge" to your position. I've done alot of research on this particular subject for personal reasons and come away "slightly" bitter and cynical from it)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You are making several incorrect assumptions.
That being a rabbi is the ultimate role within Judaism. (That's not true for men. Why would it be true in general?)
That men and women are or should be "equal" -- whatever that means.
1. How did I make this assumption? It's a fact that women arent allowed to be Rabbis in Orthodox Judiasm, yet. I didnt imply that being a Rabbi was the be all end all. I know that being a Rabbi doesnt have to involve being in a position of authority or power. But it is a role that officially acknowledges intellectual and spiritual accomplishments. It's a postion to be respected. Which women are not allowed to achieve. While we're at it, what is the "ultimate" role doctrinally? Other than God. And are women allowed to fulfill it?
2. I dont consider this to be an incorrect assumption in any way, shape, or form. I very passionately believe that men and women ARE equal, which means that one is not above or below the other.
3. "Not equal" does mean "oppressed". I dont feel oppressed because I dont have a penis and cant lift as much weight as my boyfriend, so I'm not using "equal" in that sense. However, being told that I cant teach in front of a congregation because that isn't Gods role for women... yeah. I find that oppressive.
I'm not addressing Judaism directly, I'm addressing the tendancy of most religions to put the female in a role below that of the man. Would you maybe like to address that point?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Incorrect assumptions in YOUR opinion.
Obviously. This needed to be stated? I'm not the one attacking other people's beliefs.
quote:1. How did I make this assumption? It's a fact that women arent allowed to be Rabbis in Orthodox Judiasm, yet.
"Yet"?
quote:I didnt imply that being a Rabbi was the be all end all.
If you say so.
quote:But it is a role that officially acknowledges intellectual and spiritual accomplishments. It's a postion to be respected.
So is "Torah teacher," and there are quite a few women who are that. (One of the most famous of the previous generation was a woman -- Nechama Leibowitz. The founder of the Bais Yaakov school system (pretty much every Orthodox girls' school follows this model) was Sarah Schneirer. I could go on, but I don't see the point.)
quote:While we're at it, what is the "ultimate" role doctrinally?
There isn't one. Judaism believes that every person has their own unique task, and there is not a single goal -- except the goal of coming close to God by loving and serving him.
quote:Other than God.
Wrong religion.
quote:I very passionately believe that men and women ARE equal, which means that one is not above or below the other.
Oh, good. In that case, we agree.
quote:However, being told that I cant teach in front of a congregation because that isn't Gods role for women... yeah. I find that oppressive.
Ah. So this is your personal issue? That explains quite a bit.
quote: I'm addressing the tendancy of most religions to put the female in a role below that of the man. Would you maybe like to address that point?
In general? Nope. Judaism does not do that.
And it doesn't seem you read Kressel's essay.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You are making several incorrect assumptions.
That being a rabbi is the ultimate role within Judaism. (That's not true for men. Why would it be true in general?)
That men and women are or should be "equal" -- whatever that means.
Everything rivka said, except switch "priesthood holder" for "rabbi", and "Mormonism" for "Judaism", is what I have to say as a Mormon woman.
Rivka, you rock.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other than God. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong religion.
And you also made me snort my ice cream. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Wow. Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner. I appreciate it. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with someone who, instead of choosing to address your actual points, gives instead "witty" one liners that SO obviously make their point that obviously the discussion is closed. Thanks for not going down that route.
"I'm not the one attacking other people's beliefs." I believe, very strongly, that the additude displayed towards women by many religions today is harmful. I'm going to do my best to change that additude. Talking about it to people who believe different from me is one way of honing what I really believe and making it easier to express myself without hurting others. You can choose to believe that I'm attacking you personally, or you can look at what I'm actually saying and try to refute it based on what you believe in.
I read the essay before I responded. I thought it started out with a wrong premise(my poor misguided friend wants to be like a man just because she can!) and it kept on from there. It assumes that a womans place is in the home, and that she should be content with the role given to her by god and man. I dont believe that. That kind of stops things in their tracks right there. Just because I can understand an idea or additude doesnt mean that I have to think it's right.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I believe, very strongly, that the additude displayed towards women by many religions today is harmful.
If you refuse to believe members of said religions when they tell you that the attitude you dislike is NOT actually the attitude toward women in their religions, and you have not been a member of those religions to experience differently yourself, I am curious about how you are going to actually address said religions accurately and fairly.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
See, how is basing my opinion on what is neccessarily a small minority(namely those I've talked to about it) of personal opinion LESS biased than basing my opinion on actual doctrine? Which I dont have to be a member of said religion to study?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Statements which come across as "I know your situation better than you do, and you're mistaken about it" are rarely received well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner.
I thought you were objecting to such expectations of femininity?
Do you honestly feel that you began this in a respectful manner and I am not responding in kind?
And I thought I did answer your questions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: See, how is basing my opinion on what is neccessarily a small minority(namely those I've talked to about it) of personal opinion LESS biased than basing my opinion on actual doctrine? Which I dont have to be a member of said religion to study?
Where are you getting said doctrine? Because there are at least as many sources that teach otherwise in both religions currently under discussion. If you choose to disregard what is actually taught in favor of believing a few doctrinal sources that are considered not actual doctrine or that are not interpreted literally, etc., etc., of course you're only going to come up with stuff that supports your point of view, but you're not going to get an accurate picture of actual doctrine. And if you don't let people who are LIVING in these religions point you to sources that explain their ACTUAL experience with the doctrine of said religions in daily life, you're not going to get an accurate picture of what is actually taught/understood/believed.
Or what mph said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow. Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner. I appreciate it. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with someone who, instead of choosing to address your actual points, gives instead "witty" one liners that SO obviously make their point that obviously the discussion is closed. Thanks for not going down that route.
You've been going down that route since you started this little threadlet.
I don't see where you've given any analysis deeper than one-liners. You've essentially asserted, repeatedly, that 1) the reservation of certain roles for men within a religion is not equal and that 2) such unequal treatment is oppression.
Please don't pretend that you've given "points" that support these conclusions. You've simply restated them. Further, you've ignored rivka's substantive answers to your questions, including examples of roles that "officially acknowledges intellectual and spiritual accomplishments" and are respected.
quote:You can choose to believe that I'm attacking you personally, or you can look at what I'm actually saying and try to refute it based on what you believe in.
Refute what? You've given no reason as to why different roles equals oppression other than they aren't equal. You've stated your assertion that rivka's religion treats men and women unequally but haven't bothered to give a definition of inequality. You've alluded that denying some roles to one or the other creates inequality, but haven't explained why.
In other words, you've given a starting premise that you KNOW isn't shared by others and refused to address that premise at all.
What's the point of conversing with someone like that who has admitted she basically wants to use us as a practice dummy: "I'm going to do my best to change that additude. Talking about it to people who believe different from me is one way of honing what I really believe and making it easier to express myself without hurting others."
No indication that you care to actually exchange ideas.
If you want to change that attitude, you need to realize that your rather definitions of equality and oppression are not shared by those you wish to change. Therefore, simply repeating those definitions and refusing to engage on them is not going to serve your purpose.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Wow. Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner. I appreciate it. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with someone who, instead of choosing to address your actual points, gives instead "witty" one liners that SO obviously make their point that obviously the discussion is closed. Thanks for not going down that route.
I'm assuming you're talking about me? Your original post (whether it was intended that way or not) was snotty and insulting, with no real substance to it other than "Your religion oppresses women." How do you expect people to respond to that?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Oh, and seconded on rivka rocking.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal.
What do you mean by "sanctioned authority?"
I've had Gospel Doctrine instructors who were women. In Mormonism, the Gospel Doctrine teacher is responsible for teaching a mixed class of adults and leading discussion on gospel topics, on a weekly basis.
Additionally, I (a male, FYI) served UNDER a Primary President, who was female, and not my wife. She received revelation for her calling, and how to best organize the Primary (the children's ministry), and gave me instructions, which I was accountable for following.
quote:But a religion that teaches that women are not "worthy" or sanctioned by God to be in a position of authority over men is a religion that oppresses women.
Women are not seen as unworthy of holding certain offices within Mormonism. So that statement doesn't apply to us.
I've pointed out a particular specific instance (which is, in my experience, not unique) where a woman was in a position of authority over a man; also, I've expressed the fact that women can receive direct sanction to teach doctrine to adult believers of both genders.
I don't think Mormonism is unique to Christianity in this case.
quote:So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women. Pointing out the egrarious nature of some Muslims abuse of that policy seems a little hypocritical when combined with a complete denial of ones own religious policies along those lines.
I don't think you actually understand the religious policies you're condemning.
It's true-- within Mormonism, women cannot hold the priesthood. It's also true that Mormon doctrine delineates women's responsibilities and men's responsibilities. The delineation, however, is meant to guide the general tendencies of the sexes along the best general path to the most general happiness for the general membership.
It has nothing to do with a specific gender's "worthiness." Not in Mormonism, at any rate.
Mormon scriptures include a severe admonition from the Lord in regards to the use of the priesthood-- indeed, it's a grevious sin for a man to say, "I hold the priesthood, I am God's annointed, therefore, you MUST listen to me." The latter half of Doctrine and Covenants Section 131 is devoted to instructing men on the proper use of priesthood authority.
quote: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men...
I'm fairly sure that this is a serious medical condition.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I should mention that there are some roles in Mormonism that men are never allowed to hold. So it seems to me they're both "oppressed".
I read something interesting the other day talking about "chosen people" - as in, when the Israelites say they are God's chosen people.
quote: Some people are uncomfortable talking about the idea of a "chosen people." They think it sounds self-congratulatory and elitist.... Being "chosen" doesn't mean we're chosen to sit on thrones and be admired. It's more like being chosen to mow the lawn (or more appropriately, to bring in the harvest).
This seemed to fit in this discussion, because neither men nor women in the Church choose their own jobs - we're not supposed to aspire to any particular job, or seek after any particular position. It's not about seeking power or glory. It's about working. We serve where we're asked. Men don't decide to become a bishop - they serve where they're asked, the same as women. So if not being allowed to choose whatever position you want to serve in is oppression, we're all "oppressed".
It is true that at this time a woman will not be asked to be a bishop, and a man will not be asked to be a Primary president. But it's not really about the freedom to choose your calling. For both genders it's about accepting the call you're given and working your best at it.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Every time people have different roles, one group is oppressed? I'm currently collaborating with some chemists on a research project. They aren't allowed anywhere near my code and I'm not allowed anywhere near their pipettes. Which one of us is oppressed? Or perhaps we are oppressing each other?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's the idea that one's suitability for a given (presumably) non-gendered role can be determined by gender that's the problem, Chanie.
If you weren't allowed near their pipettes because you're a girl, would that change your feeling about it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] While it is true that women are not ordained to lead the church proper, they still head auxilery organizations. Not only that they exert plenty of influence over their husbands and other men in the church.
How does the first sentence not equate to inequality? In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal. As such, they are oppressed. The oppression doesnt necessarily have to be overt or egregious, such as the practice of FGM. But a religion that teaches that women are not "worthy" or sanctioned by God to be in a position of authority over men is a religion that oppresses women. So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women. Pointing out the egrarious nature of some Muslims abuse of that policy seems a little hypocritical when combined with a complete denial of ones own religious policies along those lines.
I'm sorry I did not respond to this post Foundling. I swear I typed up a thoughtful post that addressed your point yesterday, but upon looking this morning it just was not there. But then I noticed Rivka caught the ball and ran with it so thirded on Rivka and the rocking bit.
You mentioned specifically that being unable to stand in front of a congregation and teach is oppressive. At least within Mormonism (and Scott already pointed this out) women are called to preach sermons and teach courses at least as often as the men. I have been to meetings where 3 speakers were women and one was a man. At our general conference of the church women are permitted to speak as well as men. The same spirit that bids one to give heed to the words of our prophet is the same one that admonishes obedience when a woman speaks the words of God.
You mentioned that being unable to lift as much as your boyfriend does not bother you. Well for whatever reason God has decided not to ordain women to those particular leadership positions. I could guess several reasons why but I have little confidence that any of them are correct. But one thing that is certainly hammered home in Mormonism is that leadership does not equal superior positioning in God's eyes. I can't remember who said it but he said in effect, "When I am brought before Christ to be judged I don't think he will ask me, "What positions in the church did you have? Or how much money did you make and were you promoted in your job? What car did you drive? I think he will asks questions like, were you a good father? Were you a good husband to your wife? How much time did you spend tending to the needs of others?"
I guess the disconnect is that I see leadership positions in much the same way that women have babies and men can lift more. Its not a blight on women that they are not asked to lead in precisely the same manner as men are in the Mormon church. I just got off the phone with my mother and believe me she has never ceased to try to be involved quite intimately in my decision making.
edited because Porter is big smelly jerk and the most socially irresponsible person I know.
[ June 27, 2007, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:women as a species
>.<
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men...
I'm fairly sure that this is a serious medical condition.
Would that we were all afflicted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:women as a species
>.<
See my edit smelly. How's the back doing btw?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why did you call MPH smelly?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why did you call MPH smelly?
Um... why aren't you calling him smelly?
It was the most childish and non applicable insult I could think of within 3 seconds. At work I try to be a bit more silly on the forums in order to stave off insanity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:non applicable
You obviously haven't met me in person.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:non applicable
You obviously haven't met me in person.
A fact you have taken no steps to rectify since that day my wife decided to get sick.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I moved to Oregon to get away from you. Does that count?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I moved to Oregon to get away from you. Does that count?
Pretty lame attempt I would say, I can still find you when I visit her family up in Washington.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[narrator whisper] Here we see in action the maturity and caring that make men such excellent leaders. [/narrator whisper]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*snicker*
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
My mother's been in leadership and teaching positions at church for as long as I can remember.
I never saw her treated with disrespect, despised, or ignored because of her gender. Quite the opposite.
Just sayin'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You silly girls, you can't crack our special MAN leadership code!
edit: a dollar for anyone who can come up with a clever acronym that would describe such a code with the word MAN.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
BlackBlade, I suggest not mixing the fake-macho strutting with church leadership. It belies everything said above about leaders being servants, and that kind of sexism is really not okay. Don't do it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: BlackBlade, I suggest not mixing the fake-macho strutting with church leadership. It belies everything said above about leaders being servants, and that kind of sexism is really not okay. Don't do it.
I believe the comments made in jest not only being made in seperate posts from my genuine comments as well as no quotational (yes I made the word up) connection to the posts demonstrates that I am not, "mixing" the two things.
I have trouble seeing how you can snicker at Rivka's comment, (which I too found funny) and then say my comments are sexist.
But in all honesty if I am missing something, please point it out to me. Right now I feel the way you are judging my comments is a bit unfair.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:rambling tangent about men and their relationships in the Mormon church:
I had a dream the other night that my bishop and our young men's president (who is a good friend) came over to the house, and asked if I would be willing to start a pre-school business.
"Because you're so good with children," they said.
For some reason, I was enormously offended. I'd been expecting to be asked to be nursery leader again, and this! This was beyond the pale!
Then the bishop asked if I thought I was going to die soon. My immediate thought was, "Yes. I am. But I can't tell my family that..."
And then I woke up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
BlackBlade, I think...I think that I think it's much too likely that an awful lot of men believe your light-hearted statement literally for it to be funny.
I apologize for taking your joking, completely kidding statement literally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: BlackBlade, I think...I think that I think it's much too likely that an awful lot of men believe your light-hearted statement literally for it to be funny.
I apologize for taking your joking, completely kidding statement literally.
Well if that is indeed the case then I can see how my comments might add to a problem to the point that the humor is not worth invoking. I'm sorry my jesting rubbed you the wrong way.
Thanks for being honest, I'll seriously consider your comments in the future.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
I have made the mistake before of dropping into a discussion with questions that are perceived to be antogonistic or provocative. Please understand that I ask the following questions out of a genuine desire to learn the truth about claims I have heard made about the Mormon religion.
(And if these questions have been answered or discussed before, I apologize - and feel free to ignore this post.)
Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'll seriously consider your comments in the future.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
edit: Sorry my comment is a bit confusing. Simply put, marriage has nothing to do with going to heaven, it has only to do with obtaining fully the happiness God enjoys. Mormons believe in a sort of tiered afterlife. Heaven itself has gradations, just to clarify.
It applies to both sexes. But it's not as simple as it seems. It is more that a person who is interested in being like God will take the step of marriage WHEN it presents itself at the appropriate time.
So if I was honestly trying to prepare myself for marriage and just never meet the right person, or even if one day I keel over having never had the chance to marry you are not barred from entry into heaven. Apparently some allowances are made for people to marry in the next life.
But for those who simply decide marriage is not for them, they can go to heaven, but they cannot enjoy the fullness of happiness that comes from being just like God.
[ June 27, 2007, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I'm not sure whether I agree with foundling or would prefer to point out that there are doubtless women lived under the Taliban who felt those practices honored their womanhood. That was my point.
I'd venture to say the step from mainline Christianity (defined here as denominations which allow the ordination of women) to Mormon is probably similar in magnitude as the step from Mormon to Taliban.
Of course, I could quite Mormonism any time I wanted and seek ordination any time I want. The problem is I have a testimony that the Mormon Church is God's true and living church.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
It IS true that the greatest blessings in Heaven can only be enjoyed by those who are married.
Those who don't have the opportunity to marry a worthy spouse in this life will get the chance to do so in the next.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
No, not true. If it did then yes, it would apply to men also, but that's not actually true.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
BlackBlade, Scott R, and kethupqueen - thanks.
There apparently are a lot of inaccurate claims made and misunderstandings about the Mormon religion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: BlackBlade, Scott R, and kethupqueen - thanks.
There apparently are a lot of inaccurate claims made and misunderstandings about the Mormon religion.
A problem that is being rectified gradually on a daily basis! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've actually heard prophets specify that unmarried women will have a chance to marry in the afterlife and then pointedly not say the same about men, and instead mention that men need to do all they can to get married in this life. It's not an outright statement that men won't have the opportunity. I think men with mental disorders that are repaired by the resurrection would hopefully get another chance.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
pooka, I've always taken that as "men usually have more opportunities to get married in this life, and will be judged differently", not "men won't get a chance later" (say, if they ask 50 women they love to marry them and are turned down every time, etc.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: we're not supposed to aspire to any particular job, or seek after any particular position. It's not about seeking power or glory. It's about working. We serve where we're asked. Men don't decide to become a bishop - they serve where they're asked, the same as women. So if not being allowed to choose whatever position you want to serve in is oppression, we're all "oppressed".
We protestant types don't choose whatever position we want to serve in either. Those who are set apart for particular ordained or commissioned ministry are called by God to those roles. The problem before various denominations made the administrative changes necessary to ordain women was that women who were called to be clergy were not allowed to serve in that calling. The change was made in order to not allow human prejudices to interfere with God's calling.
The process of candidacy for ordination (in the UMC, for purposes of example) involves the candidate describing (verbally and in writing) her or his call, people at all levels of the church who know or have examined the candidate testifying that they also believe she or he is called, and finally the entire body of the clergy in the Conference where the person is to be ordained affirming that we believe each person to be ordained is called by God to the ministry to which they will be ordained.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As a Catholic, I find our position on the ordination of women to be, if not oppressive, at least embarrassing and something that we need to change in order to be the church we should be. Most Catholics that I know share this opinion.
The Catholic Church, though, is large and old and thus change comes slowly. Very slowly. We also are a global church. Most Catholics are in developing areas of the world. Often those areas are considerably less forward-thinking when it comes to the role of women in society, much less the church. If it were just the American Catholic Church, I think it very possible that we would have made this change already.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That's interesting about the calling, Dana. Ideally, in the Mormon church people would have a spiritual experience preceeding a call that prepares them to receive it. Though I know it doesn't always work that way, but I've seen and experienced that often enough to know it does happen. The call is experienced not only by the individual but to the people who must extend the call. It's wonderful when it works, and frustrating when there is a call made from expediency.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We have times that it doesn't work exactly according to how it's supposed to too, of course. But the various levels of candidacy and examination are supposed to weed out the people who are in it for the authority or because they think it looks like an interesting career choice.
At least it's a good bet that no one's in it for the money.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But is it a charismatic event, or can someone just feel increasingly attracted to that profession as they grow up?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It varies from person to person. For me it was a series of nudges which I ignored with increasing difficulty until I couldn't ignore them and started actively arguing against them until I couldn't do that anymore either and grudgingly aplied for candidacy. After which I dragged my feet for another two years before I went to seminary. By which time I'd pretty much come to terms with the whole idea and quit stalling.
When the remaining holdouts against women clergy in our denomination say anything to me about it I tell them to take it up with God because it was NOT my idea. I wanted to be a physicist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How do you reconcile nudges of that sort with a doctrine of free will?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: At least it's a good bet that no one's in it for the money.
Other than PTL-type ministers, are there clergy of any religion that are "in it for the money"? Heaven knows your average rabbi isn't making that much (although there is the occasional one who is), and "poor as a churchmouse" is presumably an expression for cause. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I have known priests who were not in it "for the money," as in having any expectation of wealth, but, in my outside judgment, for the security.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yeah. And in the UMC we get requests from clergy from other denominations who want to transfer in because we have a better pension plan. (Not better than secular employment with similar education requirements, but better than some of the more congregational denominations) The COM folks try to weed those out too.
Tom, I don't see how persistent communication from God violates free will any more than persistant communication from any other source. Although God's presumably better at the subliminal advertising thing than the folks who make TV commercials. Does that count as a violation of free will?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And in the UMC we get requests from clergy from other denominations who want to transfer in because we have a better pension plan.
*blink* Huh.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I have spent too many of the past five years surrounded by people who think pretty much exactly the same way I do about religion. It has obviously made it difficult for me to communicate what I'm thinking to a religious person without coming across as agro and confrontational. I still look back at what I wrote and scratch my head at the response. The only words I would change to be less definite would be "pretty much all of Christendom and Islam". I'd add a "In my opinion" and "many parts of".
To me, I asked a very simple question. How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)? I've read through and mulled over every response, and no one has answered that question.
Regardless of the reasons WHY, if a woman feels called to the priesthood, or bishophood, in her heart, she is stopped from fulfilling that call because she is a woman. Now, from what I understand you all have been saying, there are plenty of other roles she can choose to take to fulfill that need. But what if those roles arent what she wants or needs?
It's like telling a woman who wants to be an industrial engineer that, since that's a mans job, she cant do it. She can be a librarian instead. And then telling her that being a librarian is just as good as being an industrial engineer and she should be content in that role. And from what I can tell, many seem to think that's the way it should be. Maybe it's felt that God wouldnt call a woman to the priesthood because that's not the role he created for her. But does that make those women liars? Or misguided?
You think I'm being condescending and demeaning to you personally(general religious you), but I dont feel that way and I'm trying really hard not to communicate that way. I'm not going to get into specific religions and their practices, because I dont think it's neccessary to do so in order to discuss what I want to. The GENRERAL IDEA is what I find destructive. How each individual person lives with that idea, how they come to terms with it, accept it, revel in it, whatever, doesnt actually matter to what I'm trying to say. Because for every well adjusted, happy man and woman in a religion that encourages gender inequality, there is someone suffering because of it. Why else would there be such a push to change the status quo, if everyone were happy with it? You tell me to listen to individual stories and take them into account when thinking about this idea. What about you? Do you take into account individual stories about people who feel ostraziced, sidelined, and demeaned because of this belief?
I look at individual people who believe with all their heart that their religions take on this is correct, and I dont have a problem understanding that and respecting it. I could easily be wrong, misguided, prejudiced, what have you, and I know I dont have the right to judge individuals based on anything other than actual behavior or words. I dont look at a Mormon and think "WOMAN HATER!" just because of how I feel about certain policies. I really dont. Cross my heart and all that...
But I DO have the right, and the obligation, to judge ideas based on what effect they have on the world around me. And I perceive this idea, that women are reserved for certain roles in religion and in life, generally slightly below and off to the side of men, to be destructive. In my opinion, it's been destructive to human society for a very long time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)?
Your definition of "discriminate" seems to be where we have the disconnect.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think if you start from the premise that you owe homage to a higher power of some sort that created you, you accept that your will is faulty and that in order to be a better person you will submit your will to that Creator.
Starting from that premise you can get to all the rest (I'm not saying you will get there, just that the first is necessary in order to get there)
If you don't believe that your will needs to be subservient to a Creator, (or that a Creator would demand that from you) then of course it doesn't make sense.
People also believe that by submitting their will to their Creator's is when they achieve true Liberty. The closer their will is aligned to the Creator's, the freer they are.
So if someone believes that specifically prescribed gender roles are part of the Creator's Plan, they will find freedom in complying because the closer to the Plan they follow (in theory) the Freer they will be.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I perceive this idea, that women are reserved for certain roles in religion and in life, generally slightly below and off to the side of men, to be destructive.
Another disconnect is that many people in this thread have said that they don't agree that the religions you condemn place women "slightly below and off to the left".
[ June 27, 2007, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To me, I asked a very simple question. How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)? I've read through and mulled over every response, and no one has answered that question.
The problem is that, until your last post, you hadn't bothered to answer the corresponding question. It's asking someone to defend their position from an accusation of oppression when you haven't bothered to make a prima facie case. It strikes many as unfair to do that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In Judaism, there really isn't a concept of having a "calling" in the way there is in Christianity. The notion is very foreign to me. To me, there is little difference between a women saying she wants to be a rabbi and a man saying he would like to be pregnant. Neither is compatible with the way God created them. (A man can certainly be an excellent father, and a woman can do quite a number of the things that a rabbi might do. But in neither case is it quite the same thing.) You may feel that one is internally imposed and one is not. I would disagree.
You say that you understand and respect, but the attitude and tone you take really do not indicate much evidence of either.
"[T]hat women are reserved for certain roles in religion and in life, generally slightly below and off to the side of men." As I and others have explained repeatedly, this is not an accurate statement. Speaking only for myself (although I'd guess some of the other thread participants might agree), there are certain specific roles for men, and certain specific roles for women. Both genders have limitations; neither is "below" or "off to the side."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:there are certain specific roles for men, and certain specific roles for women. Both genders have limitations; neither is "below" or "off to the side."
Exactly.
And rivka still rocks. Huzzah for excellent communication of ideas!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
foundling, honey, the deal is that women do not get called to those things, because they are women. It's not discrimination, they way LDS see it. God doesn't call hammers to turn screws, if you will.
So asking that question gets blank looks and some blinking, generally, because we are not speaking the same language.
I think this one of those times where outsiders find it difficult to follow the mental dance steps required to see what insiders take for granted. We end up regarding each other as blinkered or uncomprehending, which is not somewhere I personally want to go. If you really do want to tilt this particular windmill, go ahead. Me, I'm just going to back away slowly, with friendships in place and unharmed.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I'll chime in to say that many of us in our adult lives choose the religious faith and tradition (or lack thereof) that we belong to. At least in my current country of residence.
Many people literally believe such commandments and directions came from God, and the purposes of such things are never ascribed to things like "one gender is better than the other".
Can one wisely say one has the power to look into the hearts and minds of others and say: "No, you don't believe this because you sincerely feel it's of God, you believe this because you're sexist hypocrites and/or are oppressed victims."
That's quite a hefty judgment to make. And it's not one to be made without being prepared to go in-depth and in detail.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I did the discussions. Not only that, I read what I was told to read and prayed with all my heart to see the truth.
The result is that my faith in my decision is at least as firm as those who chose differently, and I'm grateful for that.
The person that I want to be is a person who respects others' deeply-held beliefs, even when they are in direct conflict with my own. I think the key for me is the fruit, if you will. And it is an individual thing. If a person's religion somehow makes it okay for them to kill thousands of innocents, then I do not believe that individual has a connection to God. Same with the evangelical minister who lines his pockets and beds the church secretary. Does that mean that their religions are wrong? No, it means the fruit of their individual lives kind of sucks.
But again, as reasonable people we must acknowledge that just because a person's beliefs differ from our own does not mean that they are not also reasonable, sincere people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Whether or not it should be, Catholicism is hierarchical. And that hierarchy is only open to men. Positions of authority are held only by men. Women's authority is "sideways". I was once told that if I wanted to make a difference in the church, I should have male children and influence them.
This is appalling.
There is nothing required of priests that women aren't capable of doing. It isn't like being pregnant - things that men cannot biologically do.
I will only speak for my own religion here, but I'm with foundling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is nothing required of priests that women aren't capable of doing.
It should be noted that this is actually a spiritual question, kmbboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just pointing that out because you made a very definitive statement, as though it were a statement of fact, even though in these sorts of discussions the idea that these are matters of faith are usually a given. If that makes any sense.
The point is, the idea that women are equally capable of doing the work of a Catholic priest is only true insofar as a person's faith lines up with yours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is it that men can do spiritually that women can't do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is that a serious question? That's an honest response on my part, because the answer is pretty darn obvious and predictible: I don't know.
I'm not God, and thus I don't know why He delineates certain positions for certain genders, certain roles for certain people. I don't know if He does it because one gender is by nature ill-suited to it, or if there is some other reason.
I do, however, believe that God teaches us that those things are true (different roles for different genders). Also, I do believe that different does not mean oppressive or inequal. Frankly, I believe the idea that different does equal inequal is pretty strange from a religious perspective. Women are by nature generally weaker and less free than men, simply due to being less prone to greater physical strength, and quite a lot more prone to pregnancy than men.
I got past the idea that different means oppressive a long time ago. As a religious person, I could not possibly reconcile a contrary position with the idea that God created humanity. If God created humanity, and God wants men and women to have equality down to the molecules...why on Earth would God restrict the capabilities of women via biology?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What about infertile women or physically disabled men? How does that relate to spiritual fitness?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess I didn't make my point very well.
I don't believe that equality means identical, unless we're talking about math. It's basically a matter of faith for me.
I feel that God wants there to be equality between men and women. However, I must reconcile this with this matter of faith with the fact that men and women aren't identical. Simply because of the unavoidable nature of our genders, there are some things men are more prone to in general, and some things women are more prone to in general-some things women simply cannot do, some things men simply cannot do.
So when I come back to my faith which informs me that God wants equality between men and women, I have to reconcile this biological inconsistency. That leads me to the realization that, to me, equality does not mean being identical.
And therefore, in order for men and women to be equal in a religious setting, it is not necessary that women and men all hold the same jobs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not everyone fits into the gender roles that you have laid out for them. No person is identical to any other people. What is is about gender that makes women unfit for certain roles?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can men become pregnant, birth children and I missed it? Can women impregnante other women, and I wasn't informed? Perhaps I missed the news bulletin on those topics. Maybe I need to update my alerts for the news sites.
Anyway, if you're asking that question again on religious grounds, I'll answer you for a second time: I don't know.
Edit:
quote:Not everyone fits into the gender roles that you have laid out for them. No person is identical to any other people. What is is about gender that makes women unfit for certain roles?
It should also be noted that I haven't assigned gender roles to anyone, ever, in my entire life. I've also never said that people are identical-I've said the opposite, so I wonder why you even mentioned that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do, however, believe that God teaches us that those things are true (different roles for different genders).
I beleive the opposite. I believe that God teaches us that our roles are not deliniated by our gender, except relative to the biological facts of reproduction. I base this on Galatians 3:27-28, among other things.
I do, however, recognize that other people believe differently, and I respect those beliefs as long as the decision to follow them is freely chosen by the individuals involved.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Can women impregnante other women, and I wasn't informed?
Consider this fair warning. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
For what it's worth, I understand and agree with foundling and kmboots. I don't have it in me to wade in the depths of the argument, but I will chime in with a "me, too."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I dislike the analogy to biological differences. We're talking about roles in the context of a given religious tradition, here, not about inherent physical differences between men and women.
Unless you're suggesting that God somehow created the universe such that it is physically impossible for women to fill particular roles in a given religious tradition. If so, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:How do you reconcile nudges of that sort with a doctrine of free will?
There are lots of ways to silence the voice of God so it doesn't nag. I still participate in a lot of them several times a day. Though it's kind of tough to tell on some things.
I can see a bit of what Rakeesh is saying, but it gets a bit sticky. Spiritually, a woman needs to be free of encumberances on her devotion. It's kind of like that thing Lisa said about not supporting a Jew for president, because a Jew who would put the country's need before his (or her) devotion to God was not a person she would want to follow.
I actually run into this kind of conflict a fair bit just being Relief Society president. My husband hates it, not because I am in a more "illustrious" position than him, but because he feels like there is constantly a sword hanging over us where I might have to drop everything and go off and do something for the church. Now it happens very seldom, and there's almost never anything that can't wait a little, and we're instructed to put our families first, men as well as women (that's the sticky part- it's not like fathers are expendable) but it's how he feels. I don't think the church means for it to work that way. Hmmm. I also don't know if it's him that is jealous or me that is too... loyal? Clingy? Single-mindedly devoted? Zealous? Maybe that's it. Maybe women are too zealous.
[editing in process]
I do think there is a difference. Why was rivka's quip about men's natural leadership abilities (implying a lack thereof) funny, when if someone had said it about a woman we all would have been furious? Because women are a minority, and women will never escape minority status (even where they outnumber men) as long as they are physically intimidated by men. In this sense, I don't think we can escape biology.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It seems to me that religion has always served as a vehicle for a small number of people, and as far as I am aware almost always older men, to control others. Ignoring for the moment any spiritual aspects of organized religion, from a secular standpoint it boils down to a small group of leaders, often self-appointed, who have complete authority over their congregations.
Is it any wonder that strange and draconian rules are often in place, which often seem to work very well for those in power, and less so for those out of power? The ability to say, "Hey, it's not my rule, I'm just following it too." is entirely too convenient for my taste.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And marriage, as we all know, is actually slavery. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
True enough. If I forget to wash the dishes, my wife frequently whips me.
Edit to continue:
Which part of what I said is untrue or outrageous? I find it strange that religious hierarchies so closely follow all other social hierarchies of the predominant culture. It would seem that the meek might inherit the religion, if not the earth, but the poor meek don't even get to be in charge of their own deal.
I will add that in some cultures, marriage really does amount to slavery. Fortunately, it's not so bad here in the US.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm just trying to figure out why you want to take the conversation in the direction where we ignore "for the moment" any spiritual aspects.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Because that's the cop out. That God decreed these rules, which just happen to be incredibly favorable for those in charge, and reinforce the social norms, adding more weight to the status quo. I just want to point out the obvious reason why so many religions don't have powerful positions for women - that the men in charge don't want the competition.
That's just me trying to look at it from a sociological standpoint. Of course, the trump card that "God just wants it that way, and we're not allowed to question it" completely puts a stop to any ability to discuss it, which is why I wanted to leave that out for the moment.
I feel the need to question the motives of a person or group which follows and enforces rules, but is unwilling or unable to rationalize them, except with an appeal to authority. Especially when the rules clearly favor those in power.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So why don't women start a religion where they can be in charge? While they're at it, they should make their own political and financial systems where they have more of everything.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MightyCow, I think that what you say is true for most human organizations. In any organizational structure, the people who make the rules will tend to make rules that favour themselves. You might note that Jesus addresses this very issue more than once (astute judge of human nature). We do, in theory, guard against that tendancy. I believe that we, quite often, fail and foot washing becomes an empty ritual.
Pooka, marriage isn't slavery, but it also isn't for everyone. This is where I have real problems with your argument - the idea that one way should work for everyone. How does the argument about divided loyalties apply to women who don't have children?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, the trump card that "God just wants it that way, and we're not allowed to question it" completely puts a stop to any ability to discuss it, which is why I wanted to leave that out for the moment.
You are, of course, asking those who believe that to ignore what they consider the absolute crux of the issue. It's akin to asking someone to speak of evolution but to ignore mutation for a while.
Calling it "the cop out" is simply leaping ahead to your own conclusion. Whether or not it is a cop out is pretty much the crux of the dispute. For you to want to use that disputed conclusion as a basis for deciding what should be ignored and what shouldn't be doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
quote:I dislike the analogy to biological differences. We're talking about roles in the context of a given religious tradition, here, not about inherent physical differences between men and women.
At least some of the people here are talking about inherent spiritual differences, just as real to them as physical differences.
I don't even have a firm opinion on this issue.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: For what it's worth, I understand and agree with foundling and kmboots. I don't have it in me to wade in the depths of the argument, but I will chime in with a "me, too."
Me, three. Or "me, too" to what CT said. I'm not wading into the argument because I do not wish to wound relationships. I can respect people no matter what I believe of their belief structures. I do not anticipate the same consideration, and I'm not in a place where I think arguing on teh internet will make any sort of difference. So *shrug* I honestly believe it will all come out in the wash.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What are those inherent spiritual differences?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: How does the argument about divided loyalties apply to women who don't have children?
I did say it was a sticky argument, that along with the idea that men can have their loyalties divided. I believe the term we use for this is compartmentalization. Women don't do it as much, and it is a strength for some things, not so much for others. But don't take my word for it, listen to people who talk about why a woman would be a better president, because she would have more integrity, less secrecy, because she would not compromise, etc. etc. Men succeed in politics and industry because they can cut deals and be expedient and come home and still feel okay about themselves.
I keep getting my ambitions confused. I wonder how far I can go in my new career, what possibilities it holds, and then I have to give myself a shake and remind myself this is just paying the bills while I write novels, and that's why I don't have to excuse myself for not having advanced degrees in the area of my employment.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Of the religions which do allow women roles of authority, I've not heard that they are regretting that, for the resounding failures of the female pastors. Were I in charge, I'd say make the ruling on a case by case basis. If Governor Arnold can carry a child to term, surely there must exist one such Priestinator of a woman who can successfully lead a congregation.
I realize that anyone who wants to can just say, "God says so" and leave it at that. For those who might want to think outside the self-imposed box, I simply wanted to point out an alternate reading.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Men succeed in politics and industry because they can cut deals and be expedient and come home and still feel okay about themselves.
I think this is an overgeneralization that's pretty easily proven false. The idea that men are somehow lacking in introspection, self-awareness, or conscience is certainly not one that I think has any basis in reality.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, the basic reduction of structures to "God says so" is why I stand by my statement that in some sense, Mormons do treat women like the Taliban. But as often is the case when folks criticize Mormons, the same can be said of many other major religions.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I think this is an overgeneralization that's pretty easily proven false. The idea that men are somehow lacking in introspection, self-awareness, or conscience is certainly not one that I think has any basis in reality.
This reminds me of that old scholastic question of whether women have souls -- only for men.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I did say it was a sticky argument, that along with the idea that men can have their loyalties divided. I believe the term we use for this is compartmentalization. Women don't do it as much, and it is a strength for some things, not so much for others. But don't take my word for it, listen to people who talk about why a woman would be a better president, because she would have more integrity, less secrecy, because she would not compromise, etc. etc. Men succeed in politics and industry because they can cut deals and be expedient and come home and still feel okay about themselves.
I'm not sure, are you trying to say that all men and all women are like this?
If not, then what is your point as it pertains to what's being discussed?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm speaking of the trait that we talk about when we argue on why Mr. Squicky, Tom, and Dagonee (as well as OSC) sometimes hurt people's feelings without realizing it.
Exhibit B is the fact that I remembered that conversation and am bringing it up now.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't think it is any stretch of the imagination to say that many or most gender stereotypes are as much a result of the self-perpetuation nature of the stereotypes as any basis in genetics.
Even if we assume that there are some underlying intellectual, emotional, psychological and spiritual differences, does every leader have to be the best of all possible leaders? Certainly there are some exceptional women who would serve better than the worst of the men currently filling the role.
Are the women so absolutely lacking in spiritual leadership that even the worst of all men is more suited than the best of all women? I find that hard to swallow.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
While I believe that it is possible for men and women to tend to group at certain parts of a spectrum on certain characteristics, I take issue with the idea that all women or all men fall into those categories. Or that they should.
Most men are taller than most women, but there are women who are taller than some men.
With non-physical charachteristics particularly, it is also important to note that some of these groupings are imposed by society and may not be natural inclinations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What are those inherent spiritual differences?
Kate, assuming that was directed at me, read the last sentence of my post again.
quote:I'm speaking of the trait that we talk about when we argue on why Mr. Squicky, Tom, and Dagonee (as well as OSC) sometimes hurt people's feelings without realizing it.
Who is this "we" and when and where, exactly, has such an argument occurred?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm speaking of the trait that we talk about when we argue on why Mr. Squicky, Tom, and Dagonee (as well as OSC) sometimes hurt people's feelings without realizing it.
Yes*, you are doing it in such a way to assign it to all men and to say that no women have it. Which, to me, is both incredibly sexist and patently absurd.
---
* I'm granting the rather bizarre premise here in order to focus on what I think is more important, not because I think it is accurate.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
Of course, I'm quite vulnerable to being proved wrong by someone throwing a fit at what I'm saying and quitting Hatrack for a good 6 months.
Any takers?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, it wasn't directed at you. I was just using your clarity to restate the question I asked Rakeesh earlier. Pooka, I think, has made an effort to answer it. Not really to my satisfaction, though.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
The problem I have with the "God says so" argument is that it means that God created a seemingly arbitrary distinction that makes him look sexist, but he doesn't seem to care that it looks that way, he just expects us to believe that he isn't. Or it means God really is sexist, in which case women are just out of luck. Additionally, how does one know that God's will is being discerned correctly? The role of women has changed much throughout the Bible, how do we know this isn't due to misinterpretation on our part?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I have many answers to the question, but I don't really share them with skeptics. It would be like trying to debate whether I really love my children.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, it wasn't directed at you.
OK, thanks Kate.
quote:When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
Can you link this discussion, please?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have certainly been known to hurt people's feelings and I am unquestionably a woman.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)?
I think it can be discrimination (in the traditional sense that to "discriminate" means to "choose between things") without being oppression. As a member of the religions you're talking about, a person would have to feel oppressed to agree that it was oppressive. There are women who feel that way. I don't know any personally.
quote: Regardless of the reasons WHY, if a woman feels called to the priesthood, or bishophood, in her heart, she is stopped from fulfilling that call because she is a woman.
For some religions it may work that way ... in mine (LDS), you serve where you are asked to serve. Men as well as women. A man can't feel in his heart like he should be a bishop and then go be a bishop; he can't serve that way unless he's asked to. Likewise for women. It's true that as a woman there are some callings I know I won't be asked to do, and likewise for men. But it's not a matter of being kept from the calling I feel like God is calling me to.
Anytime I feel in my heart that I need to serve, I can serve. I just can't take upon myself a position that I have not been called to do by a person with authority to make that call. Nor can a man. I'm aware that's different from most religions and may be hard to see from that viewpoint.
I feel men and women are equally of worth to God and to the world and to the Church; they are equally loved and equally respected, and can be equally used as His tools in His work. And FWIW, I don't believe men are necessarily better leaders than women or inherently better qualified for any reasons specific to being a man. I don't think there's any ability they have by virtue of being a man that fits them for the priesthood, that a woman could not also have. The ONLY reason, IMO, for women not holding the priesthood is because at this time God chooses not to extend the priesthood to them. So trying to take God out of the equation is taking out the ENTIRE argument.
And here's where the breakdown comes ... before you can in any way understand this thinking, you have to have faith in God and faith that He leads the church, not the men who are in those positions. They follow His lead. I don't know why He has chosen to give the priesthood to only the worthy men and not the women ... but I have faith that that is His decision and not theirs. So if there is discrimination it's God discriminating ... although as I don't feel oppressed, I don't agree that discrimination equals oppression. And if you are looking at it from the outside without any faith that God is in fact the leader of the church, then it will always look like the discrimination of men, and open for argument.
Of course "God says so" is the trump argument, because you can't tell God he ought to change things. But if that's what people really believe is the SOLE reason for the policy, then there's no point in arguing it with those people.
(You might argue "But HOW could you believe in a God that would do that?" ... but then we'd be getting kind of close to breaking the charter....)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:The ONLY reason, IMO, for women not holding the priesthood is because at this time God chooses not to extend the priesthood to them.
If you're speaking of priesthood in the Mormon church, I don't think this is right. But then, it's not like any man holds the priesthood in and of himself anyway, both in the spiritual sense and in the practical sense. A man cannot decide that from now on he will bless and administer the sacrament in his own house, for instance.
I'm still reading around, Dagonee. I'm getting the creeping, shameful suspicion that the conversation may not have occured on this board.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The problem I have with the "God says so" argument is that it means that God created a seemingly arbitrary distinction that makes him look sexist, but he doesn't seem to care that it looks that way, he just expects us to believe that he isn't. Or it means God really is sexist, in which case women are just out of luck.
Mormonism gets around the argument by stating that gender is eternal. Spirits were not necessarily made male or female by God.
We've come back around to the beginning of this argument-- people who are critics of the system insisting that the system is discriminatory, and people within the system claiming it is not.
When women get the priesthood, there will be much rejoicing. Because having the priesthood means, ladies, that YOU get to move the heavy stuff, and *I* get to make fruity centerpieces for the potluck afterwards.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Because having the priesthood means, ladies, that YOU get to move the heavy stuff, and *I* get to make fruity centerpieces for the potluck afterwards.
Wow. Now that's some hardcore sexism.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Totally. Back in the kitchen. And why are you wearing shoes? Think you're going somewhere?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
You have to have the priesthood to move the heavy stuff?
Oh, man, I've been using it unauthorized for years....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I'm a man, which means I'm burdened with things like deciding what to do and going to work and the like. They shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about that nasty old hard work and instead make me dinner, all the while greatful that I'm doing the tough stuff.
edit: I get that you were joking Scott. That almost makes it worse.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's okay, as long as you were moved upon by the holy spirit to do that work.
The Spirit justifieth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: You have to have the priesthood to move the heavy stuff?
Oh, man, I've been using it unauthorized for years....
I must have a pretty weak grasp of the priesthood then, it has not augmented my ability to lift anything to any significant degree, however perhaps THAT is why my ability to cook has been stiffled so much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:points and snickers:
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I get that you were joking Scott. That almost makes it worse.
Yes....
No.
Seriously. I don't understand how joking "makes it worse." What's "it?" And how is "it" made worse by my being lighthearted?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The content of the joke wasn't the sexist part. It was the framework and underlying assumptions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I dare you to make sense.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, you're making the mistake with Scott that I made with BlackBlade - that on some level, he's not joking. I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Can I just point out that there are explanations to only men having the priesthood that do not assume one sex is more endowed with leadership attributes. I have no idea if any of them are right, I honestly do not understand why God calls only men to leadership positions.
For example what if it is true that generally speaking men work better with other men when it comes to the leadership process then they do with women, and vice versa? What if by mixing the sexes intimately in the decision making process the potential for contention and iniquity is increased? Say we have a female bishop and one male counselor and one female counselor. I can already see MANY different ways that conflict could ensue. You could have the male feel like the two females are ganging up on him for being a man, you could have sexual tension develop between the male counselor and either the bishop or other counselor. You could have both female bishop and counselor jockying for the man's attention. The problem could only be exacerbated by the weekly often almost daily meetings that bishoprics frequently have late into the night. The female bishop's husband might feel uncomfortable that his wife spends so much time privately with another man. In terms of gross cost its simply easier to keep leadership responsibility which also has the potential to cause the most harm as risk free as reasonably possible without causing undue adversity to either sexes. Being in a leadership position to me is not required for ones happiness.
If God decides one day to switch it up or mix it up I will support the decision.
I do not know at ALL if what I suggested is actually true or if its even a good enough reason, but I have a few reasons I play around that could explain the unisexual nature of the priesthood without saying women are less apt as leaders then men.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not to answer for MrSquicky, but for me "it" is the idea that all women should be making the spiritual equivalent of fruity centerpieces and that men should be doing the heavy lifting. "It" is made worse when people don't take seriously how unfair and even cruel this is to women who aren't so good at making centerpieces but would be great at lifting heavy stuff - if they were allowed. It is also pretty hurtful to men who have a flair for the centerpieces but who can't lift stuff. Taking lightly the hurt this causes people trying to fit a certain expectation does make things worse.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That wasn't it for me. That was the joking part, I thought.
It was more the idea of the priesthood as being a burden that women are better off without.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
I disagree that there are no female posters here who "run roughshod" over people. I think the men are generally chivalrous enough to not point it out.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Gee ... being from the same background as Scott, I figured he meant ... moving people's furniture. And setting up tables. Which frequently, instead of the "men" being asked to come set up tables, they ask "the priesthood".
Didn't get anything spiritual about it at all....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, if that was the context intended, I was very much off base and would like to appologize.
edit: From this outsider's perspective, that's a bizarre conflation. But that's from the outside.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, that interpretation only works if you consider moving furniture to be a burden but consider making the blasted centerpieces not one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
I disagree that there are no female posters here who "run roughshod" over people.
Agreed.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For example what if it is true that generally speaking men work better with other men when it comes to the leadership process then they do with women, and vice versa? What if by mixing the sexes intimately in the decision making process the potential for contention and iniquity is increased? Say we have a female bishop and one male counselor and one female counselor. I can already see MANY different ways that conflict could ensue. You could have the male feel like the two females are ganging up on him for being a man, you could have sexual tension develop between the male counselor and either the bishop or other counselor. You could have both female bishop and counselor jockying for the man's attention.
If any of those are the reason, the solution is for the people involved to grow up and get over it. Just like they do in the secular world.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Squicky, that interpretation only works if you consider moving furniture to be a burden but consider making the blasted centerpieces not one.
The grass is always greener, you know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed, Dana. That explanation assumes quite juvenile behavior on the part of alleged adults involved.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Women do actually help move things, though, right? I mean, they aren't prohibited from doing so (by custom at least)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, heavens, no. We might break a nail. And what if we strain a uterus?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
They help. Occasionally they are chastised by the overdeveloped sense of "chivalry" on the part of some man who says, "You don't have to do that! Let me get that for you." But no, they're not prohibited.
And because I always underestimate the misconceptions about Mormonism out there: In case there was misunderstanding, when I said "the priesthood" is assigned to move things, it is not really a Priesthood assignment, it's just shorthand for "the men". Because, you know, men lift things. If a woman came to help she would not be turned away and if a man who didn't hold the priesthood came to help he wouldn't be turned away either. And if a priesthood holder physically couldn't help he wouldn't be condemned.
Likewise if some priesthood holder really wanted to decorate the tables for dinner he wouldn't be prohibited ... except perhaps by the smirking from other men.
Edit: katharina!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For example what if it is true that generally speaking men work better with other men when it comes to the leadership process then they do with women, and vice versa? What if by mixing the sexes intimately in the decision making process the potential for contention and iniquity is increased? Say we have a female bishop and one male counselor and one female counselor. I can already see MANY different ways that conflict could ensue. You could have the male feel like the two females are ganging up on him for being a man, you could have sexual tension develop between the male counselor and either the bishop or other counselor. You could have both female bishop and counselor jockying for the man's attention.
If any of those are the reason, the solution is for the people involved to grow up and get over it. Just like they do in the secular world.
Are you kidding me? Ok obviously you are not but where in the secular world do you see men and women work together in perfect harmony with a 1:1 ratio in leadership positioning?
The church does not get to operate at the same standards that say a bank run on. If the president of a bank has an affair with a secretary its shrugged off and its business as usual. In a church if the bishop runs off with the head of the women's relief society, families are shattered, testimonies are shaken, hearts are broken. Many people ask, "If God knows everything why would he have called such people to be leaders in the church?" Opinions harden regarding the truthfulness of the work.
Human beings attempting to emulate the organization that God has is a VERY risky thing. I agree we should all just grow up and become like Jesus, unfortunately for most people including myself this takes ALOT of time.
You can't blame God for giving us the lesser milk before the meat. Who knows, the time for meat may be nigh, and tomorrow Mormons will have female clergy. But God giving us lesser rules that prepare us for the greater ones is not without precident in the scriptures.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Calling the men "the Priesthood" is another cultural thing. I've heard it spoken out against from the pulpit - it is conflating the power of God with those who hold it.
I have to admit, I hate it. I think it cheapens the priesthood a little. I always have this mental image of the tables and chairs being levitated across the room a la Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
---
Black Blade, she's serious and so am I. By that logic, the EQ president should never talk to the RS president. Women are not capable of controlling themselves in the same room as men. Seriously - I think it's quite degrading to both sexes to suggest that the reason women are kept out of leadership positions is because they can't control themselves from fighting over the men and the men can't control themselves around women. I'm a little appalled you're suggesting it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
edit: too many posts since, and not funny anyway
Also, my search for the "roughshod" conversation only yielded a post in which Dagonee was mistaken for a girl again. So for the time being I'll retract that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, there aren't always 1:1 correspondence, but there is no assumption that it couldn't be either. Further, very rarely does a boss sleep with a secretary and it gets shrugged off at a secular place of work. There's a good chance they both get fired.
-Bok
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:By that logic, the EQ president should never talk to the RS president. Women are not capable of controlling themselves in the same room as men.
I don't agree that that's necessarily "the reason". But it is true that there are Church-wide rules that RS president and Bishop should not ride together to Stake meetings ... that Bishop should not interview women alone in the building ... that Primary team-teachers have to be two men or two women or a husband and wife, etc.
There's obviously a valid reason for those concerns. I'm not saying that's why women don't have the priesthood; I have my own opinions; but it's not an invalid point.
BTW I totally agree with you about hating asking "the priesthood" the move furniture.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe it's more like women not being in combat. I mean, how do we feel about that? I tend to assume that as long as our fighting force isn't asking for women in the trenches, we shouldn't force them to go, either forcing the women to go or the men to accomodate them. What about an all woman platoon?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can't blame God for giving us the lesser milk before the meat.
You know, I've never quite understood this particular argument. Of course you can blame God for this.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, heavens, no. We might break a nail. And what if we strain a uterus?
*wipes tear*
That was beautiful!
***
I agree with TomD on the roughshod thing. I think (especially in an online context devoid of non-verbal cues) men and women both do this. I know I've been guilty of it, mostly due to not knowing other people's frame of mind at the time of posting. I have, when attempting to be light-hearted, quite accidentally wounded people.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Why don't we have mixed sports teams, while we're at it? Aren't there any female basketball players who are better than some professional male basketball players? Why was it okay for Hermione to sock Malfoy? Why was Fleur DelaCoeur such a miserable failure throughout the tri-wizard tournament? I know it's fiction, but it sold reasonably well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Black Blade, she's serious and so am I. By that logic, the EQ president should never talk to the RS president. Women are not capable of controlling themselves in the same room as men. Seriously - I think it's quite degrading to suggest that the reason women are kept out of leadership positions is because they can't control themselves from fighting over the men. I'm a little appalled you're suggesting it.
For goodness sakes, please try and consider that I was suggesting that men are as likely to do the same thing. If my example had been a male bishop with one male and one female counselor the EXACT same problems could occur, it wouldn't be the WOMAN'S fault, it would be the fault of all involved.
I am merely stating it as a POSSIBILITY that when it comes to working as a leadership unit simply avoiding all the issues that come up between the sexes may be preferable. You might completely dismantle the arguement, I have no emotional attachment to it, I'm simply trying to posit reasons that are not the typical, "Men = leaders women = followers." You are welcome to join me in the effort.
As for your logic of the EQ Pres being unable to speak to the RS Pres thatss an extreme unwarranted extension of what I was saying. Would the EQ president be OK if he frequently met with the RS president behind closed doors to "Correlate and discuss joint priesthood and relief society functions?" Perhaps, some people would have NO problem with it, but not everybody. That's why there are many rules about how a male administrator can properly meet with a female in private.
Missionaries have FAR more strict rules about such conduct because they are indeed younger and less mature. But its not as if people suddenly stop being human in their 20's and 30's, the rules slacken as a result but don't disappear.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't think the RS president meets with the EQ president. I'm not sure how it's done other places. I meet with the BP once a month, and I'm pretty sure that's in the ALTM. (I'm having a bit of fun with the ethnocentric acronyms there).
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Why was Fleur DelaCoeur such a miserable failure throughout the tri-wizard tournament?
For real! She's the best that school could offer?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can't blame God for giving us the lesser milk before the meat.
You know, I've never quite understood this particular argument. Of course you can blame God for this.
I guess I mean "condemn" in this context Tom. It's akin to yelling at your parents for giving you training wheels instead of just throwing you on a bicycle, giving you a push and watching you fall over.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And they make it worse in the movie by making it an all-girl school.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Blackblade, I am absolutely seriously. I find the attitude you described appalling. We aren't in Jr. High anymore and anyone, male or female who would act in the way you outlined shouldn't be in a leadership position in the first place.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
page 5 has been entertaining!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:bows:
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Blackblade, I am absolutely seriously. I find the attitude you described appalling. We aren't in Jr. High anymore and anyone, male or female who would act in the way you outlined shouldn't be in a leadership position in the first place.
Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But if working with just others of their own sex, or rather being limited in their interaction gives men and women the training wheels they need to become like God and have no problem working with members of the opposite sex, I just don't see that as God decreeing that one sex is better suited for leadership then the other, simply that human beings are children that need to be trained up.
^^ People have alot of growing up to do IMO, if our God expects monogamy, your average person just does not cut mustard.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Aren't there any female basketball players who are better than some professional male basketball players?
No, there aren't. There is not a single woman player who can compete with the men in the NBA. The top WNBA players can maybe win some of the time against serious playground players.
In sports or roles where women are actually able to compete, there are mixed teams. In leagues where the level of play doesn't preclude it, there are also mixed teams.
However, that's pretty much the point. There is a reason for the different treatment in professional sports. The real physical differences between the sexes make it so that women are not able to do the job anywhere near as well as men. Rejecting women from leadership positions either lies just on the fact that they are women (which is sexist) or there is a reason backing this, most likely that they are uniformly not suited for leadership positions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Dana. Black Blade, the EQ pres and RS pres do frequently interact. The scenario you are describing and assuming would happen is juvenile and appalling, and it's degrading to every involved. If a leader can't be trusted with keeping their most basic covenants, then how can they be trusted with stewardship of any kind?
I think there are legitimate reasons for the all-male priesthood leadership (mostly, I have a testimony that it's the Lord's will), but that retcon explanation for this policy of the Lord's is degrading to everyone involved.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:We aren't in Jr. High anymore and anyone, male or female who would act in the way you outlined shouldn't be in a leadership position in the first place.
So true. Sadly, it does happen. Sometimes, Scout leaders do horrible things to their scouts. Some Catholic priests do horrible things to teenage boys. And Mormon bishops sometimes run off with the Relief Society president (or YW leader, as in a case I heard about).
Again, not necessarily a reason to keep women out of leadership positions, but there IS a valid reason for the safeguards put in place to prevent this type of thing ... from not allowing Scout leaders to sleep in the tent with the boys, to not letting Bishops and RS presidents have private meetings with no one else in the building. I know there's a difference between preying on young people and two adults succumbing to temptation ... but the Church is going to do all in its power to avoid the temptation.
It's one thing to say "That's not a good enough reason," which I understand; it's another to say "That doesn't happen with grown-ups."
(Edited to add "some" because I don't want to condemn ALL scout leaders or priests)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:We aren't in Jr. High anymore and anyone, male or female who would act in the way you outlined shouldn't be in a leadership position in the first place.
There's acting that way, and then there's feeling that way. Mormons also have a very different organization from a protestant church. For one thing we aren't trained, really, we are working part time on a volunteer basis, and so it takes a lot of people who are peers working together on things. There isn't any professional distance, we are supposed to have comraderie. I imagine your congregation is also dependent on a volunteer effort, but I really think there are about 21 people who work together to "lead" a Mormon congregation [added] in addition to the usual volunteer ministry[/added]. Also, I keep changing the number because I keep forgetting the people who never show up to branch council in our congregation. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It's one thing to say "That's not a good enough reason;" it's another to say "That doesn't happen with grown-ups."
Exactly! I might actually agree the first statement is true!
katherina: If you feel so degraded talking matter of factly about this issue then I don't feel very comfortable continuing this thread along these lines. Either one of us has to stop reading the thread, (not a favorable outcome IMO) or you will have to just accept that I am trying to brain storm ideas. I was very hesitant to try and figure out the mind of God on this matter in this thread, and I am trying to do it without being insulting to either sex.
My belief that men and women have problems when they work together to me is not just an idea, its a fact of life as demonstrated by our high divorce rates, instances of domestic violence, rape, and Oprah.
If human beings are by and large better then I have suggested they are, then nobody will be happier to be proven wrong then me. I will listen to you, I will even give your words real consideration, I might even change my mind! But to keep calling my suggestions, "degrading" does neither of us any favors. It emotionalizes the issue and makes this a fight between you and me, and I am COMPLETELY uninterested in such a situation. If my ideas are compeletely out of touch with reality, then help me understand why I am wrong. Simply saying in effect, "You are completely wrong, and frankly the fact you could even suggest that is true is degrading," is quite literally an insult. It's entirely avoidable.
I'd like to continue talking with you and everyone else in this thread, and I would be VERY pleasently surprised and happy to come away from it with things to think about that I had not previously considered.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Take a breath, Black blade. It's no better to say one of you has to stop reading the thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm going to chime in with the junior high schoolishness of your objections BB. With the level of maturity that your postulated people are showing, no system is going to work, other than having adult guardians watching over them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dogpile!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Black Blade, I'm sorry you are upset. I am not, however, sorry about my opinion of your words. I think justifying excluding women from anything by saying that either they or the men will not be able to control themselves IS degrading.
It's low expectations. It's putting up training wheels. It's refusing to let 10-year-olds drive. Except you aren't talking about children - you're talking about adults, but treating them like children. I think treating adult women like children is a really bad idea.
---
As a side note, accusing me of emotionalizing the issue when I call your theory degrading isn't helping.
[ June 28, 2007, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
How do high divorce rates and instances of domestic violence show that men and women have problems when they work together?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no idea what you're saying there, ElJay. What don't know what possible connection you could be drawing between men and women working together and domestic violence.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I missed that the first time. I see the divorce, but not the domestic violence or rape. I mean, my dad ran off with his western-dance partner. I kind of saw that one coming. He didn't like dancing with my mom because she was taller than him.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote: My belief that men and women have problems when they work together to me is not just an idea, its a fact of life as demonstrated by our high divorce rates, instances of domestic violence, rape, and Oprah.
I would only say that this could just as easily be caused or exacerbated by unnecessary gender roles as some biological/spiritual inherency. The Oprah example, in particular, would be more of the former than the latter, IMO.
I know you have your answer from a very reliable source to you, BB, and I won't argue that.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Listing the results is not getting at the spiritual inherency anyway.
Mormons have a tendency to not think any of the commandments are "just so". We want to think there is a good reason for all the things we are asked to do. Though I read an interesting bit in Doctrine & Covenants Section 20 about the commandments being for our inspiration, kind of like encouragement.
This is speaking of Joseph Smith: 6" But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; 7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; "
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
pooka: Um...yes it is? If somebody is perceived to be taking offense then somebody has to take a step back or somebody has to resolve the offense.
Mr S: I didn't say wouldn't work at all, I said the risk involved is not worth it, its possibly easier to split things up. Did you read the study I linked ealier? Those are for the most part statistics where the long term is being looked at.
katherina: I am not upset, I am pleased that you feel the same way. Please note I am leaning more towards, "Men and women will slip up and choose not to controlt themselves," not, "Men and women are totally unable to control themselves." I hope that makes my idea less offensive to you.
Our disconnect seems to be that I believe compared to God we ARE all children. The margin of difference between a human adult and a child is minute compared to the distance between a human adult and God IMO.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I agree on the "we are children" part. Though I have similar feelings to this as I do about the role of women in the church. It's not resentment, it's puzzlement.
That's why I don't feel the logic of God's commandments is necessarily going to be transparent to mortals.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't understand how keeping women out of church leadership positions would do anything to prevent affairs. First of all, it isn't as though men and women never interact. Why would the fact that the woman is a leader in the church make it any more likely that two people would behave in an inappropriate manner?
Second, do you want male leaders in the church who are somehow unable to control their lusts if a woman is around? Do you really want to jump on board with the kind of thinking that forces women to cover their entire body for fear that they might tempt a man?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
*posts link back to page 2 of this thread*
Though while I was there, I wanted to bring up that FGM/FGC comes in several varieties, at least one of which is supposed to improve a woman's responsiveness rather than destroy it. Not that I'm signing up for that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Look I didn't JUST say lust. I think men and women communicate and operate quite differently. Whether this is the result of their natures or their socially mandated gender roles is not something I am certain of.
But that combined with the sexuality that exists between sexes to me creates a dynamic that should be considered. Obviously many of you completely disagree, but I feel like people are taking my arguments and bastardizing them into, "Men and Women are sex beasts therefore they cannot work in leadership capacities together." I don't think the world is that cut and dry nor do I have that low of an opinion of humanity. Even in my church where women do not have the priesthood there is still mixing of the sexes when it comes to making decisions.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've worked in lots of companies where women had leadership roles, women and men worked together on all levels, and nobody had a problem. This kind of thinking seems so backward to me, it's just difficult to wrap my head around.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I think part of the problem is that you seem, at least to me, to have a very simplistic/stunted view of male-female interactions and of human nature in general.
Your examples don't appear to me to be about people in general, but instead about some very juvenile people. However, you seem to be viewing them as a good representation of how people generally act.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
mph, ElJay was responding to BB's statement: "My belief that men and women have problems when they work together to me is not just an idea, its a fact of life as demonstrated by our high divorce rates, instances of domestic violence, rape, and Oprah."
She was asking exactly what you did, "what possible connection you could [BlackBlade] be drawing between men and women working together and domestic violence"?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MC, while not a Mormon theology (although there is still the concept of natural man), most Christians start on the basis that we are all sinners of corrupt nature. Frankly, however, I think the business = religious culture is simply not true. There are just too many differences, like you have to work for survival while religion is generally a choice.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know that domestic violence is on the rise, but I'll say again that divorce, which he mentioned at first, is probably related, as a part of the general change in social conditions since women entered the work force after WWII. Though I am ambivalent about labelling women's liberation as a reversal in the condition of society in general and women in particular. That would be more clearly like the Taliban, and I was saying Mormons are like the Taliban spiritually, not socially.
Usually Mormons argue against the "total depravity" of mankind, and in particular the baseness of the physical body.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's the thing though, BB. Outside of Godly decree, it appears that if the Bishop were female and the RS President were male, you'd have the same problems. So the fact that sexuality and the like is an issue doesn't imply separating the two into positions the others can't be assigned to, but that the expectations of conduct, regardless of gender, should be well understood by all the principals (??) involve, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Occaisional, we could keep just in church culture. The church I serve has three pastors -- two male, one female. So far the only time the men have competed for my attention is when they need help figuring out something on their computers.
Our music staff includes two organists, one male and one female, and the choir director is male and the music coordinator female. So far no one has run off with anyone else.
Our administrative council chairperson is male and the co-chair is female. Neither of their spouses seem to mind.
All four of our parish nurses are female, but their group dynamics don't seem to be significantly better or worse than the mixed gender groups.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MC: Well again women are not barred from having leadership roles in the church. And just because there ARE instances where nothing goes wrong does not mean there is still a general snag with it happening in a church.
quote: BB, I think part of the problem is that you seem, at least to me, to have a very simplistic/stunted view of male-female interactions and of human nature in general.
Mr S, I think part of the problem is that you seem, at least to me to have a very unstated and therefore unsupported view of male-female interactions and of human nature in general.
or how about,
Mr S, I think part of the problem is that you seem, at least to me to have a very overly generous and naive view of male-female interactions and of human nature in general.
You could perhaps say that I have low opinion of the CURRENT state of mankind. I think our potential is boundless, which is why if God decides one day, "Hey its time to start calling women to leadership positions in the church proper," I will accept it and be glad for the church's progression, if that is in fact a step in the right direction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can't blame God for giving us the lesser milk before the meat.
You know, I've never quite understood this particular argument. Of course you can blame God for this.
Of course, my inclination is to blame our understanding of God.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
By the way, I do think that women can and do have the priesthood. However, I don't think they are to hold leadership responsibilities within the priesthood, as they have a different calling in life of motherhood. Yes, I know some will never fulfill that calling while in this life, but I don't see it as a short mortal role. In fact, priesthood leadership roles are short lived and mortal. Again, as was mentioned, this has to do with a theological understanding I hold that currently I don't have time to explain.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, yeah, I don't think the women in combat thing wound up getting any notice. Is there anyone here who
a) believes women should be ordained to ministry
AND
b) does not believe women should serve in combat
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Here's the thing though, BB. Outside of Godly decree, it appears that if the Bishop were female and the RS President were male, you'd have the same problems. So the fact that sexuality and the like is an issue doesn't imply separating the two into positions the others can't be assigned to, but that the expectations of conduct, regardless of gender, should be well understood by all the principals (??) involve, IMO.
-Bok
You are right. Even if I am completely right and am on to a huge reason for why things are they way they are I still cannot say why then men were picked instead of women.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:However, I don't think they are to hold leadership responsibilities within the priesthood, as they have a different calling in life of motherhood. Yes, I know some will never fulfill that calling while in this life, but I don't see it as a short mortal role. In fact, priesthood leadership roles are short lived and mortal.
Those are two very inconsistent statements. If priesthood leadership roles are short lived and mortal, then they won't interfere with many of the motherhood roles.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Here's the thing though, BB. Outside of Godly decree, it appears that if the Bishop were female and the RS President were male, you'd have the same problems. So the fact that sexuality and the like is an issue doesn't imply separating the two into positions the others can't be assigned to, but that the expectations of conduct, regardless of gender, should be well understood by all the principals (??) involve, IMO.
-Bok
You are right. Even if I am completely right and am on to a huge reason for why things are they way they are I still cannot say why then men were picked instead of women.
*worried look*
So is this the point where the sneak attack occurs, and Scott and Porter initiate the dreaded Wedgie of Doom??
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
BlackBlade is somewhat correct about the attitudes that drive non-married, opposite gender interactions in church.
As a nursery leader, it was policy that I had to have either two women or one other man with me at all times, whenever there were children present. This was explicitly because I was male. There was no such policy for women until later. I was prohibited even from taking the kids into the hall to find their parents by myself.
It's policy that males and females leaders do not meet alone. The exception I can think of is when there are interviews with ecclesiastical leaders-- things like temple recommend interviews. While I OFTEN worked with the Relief Society president when I was Elder's Quorum president, we did not meet alone. I can't think of any reason why we would have.
Men and women CAN work well together; and I was a stellar Nursery leader. (It remains the one calling where I felt, every Sunday, that I was really doing good) BUT history has shown heartbreaking instances of indiscretion and abuse-- and we've decided to craft policy to avoid those instances. The cost of heartache is too high.
This doesn't touch on the women and the priesthood thing at all-- just policy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Here's the thing though, BB. Outside of Godly decree, it appears that if the Bishop were female and the RS President were male, you'd have the same problems. So the fact that sexuality and the like is an issue doesn't imply separating the two into positions the others can't be assigned to, but that the expectations of conduct, regardless of gender, should be well understood by all the principals (??) involve, IMO.
-Bok
You are right. Even if I am completely right and am on to a huge reason for why things are they way they are I still cannot say why then men were picked instead of women.
*worried look*
So is this the point where the sneak attack occurs, and Scott and Porter initiate the dreaded Wedgie of Doom??
-Bok
Or perhaps while you look behind you to catch them sneaking up on you I pull a reversal on you and apply the wedgie O doom myself!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So it's not the Mormons you see, but the Mormons you didn't even know were there that get you? Man, you folks are good!
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Mr S. sorry I can't elaberate on that, but it is a theological belief of mine. I don't care if it is contrary or doesn't make sense. I am in the camp of "God said so and therefore it is." My answer to any questions on why is take it up with God as that is who set it up.
Edit: (actually, its not totally that is how God set it up, but that is the way it is and God worked with what existed. A Mormon viewpoint for sure.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We come at you sideways. That's how we move, how we think.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
EDIT: Somehow posted the above message all over again!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Occ, I'm not sure you understand my objection. You are saying that they can't have leadership roles because this interferes with Motherhood roles. However, you say that leadership roles are short-lived and mortal. Therefore, women who aren't mothers during the time that they would be leaders (or are never mothers in their mortal life) wouldn't have their motherhood interfered with.
The only way I can reconcile these statements is if the very fact of being in a leadership position at any point will interfere with a future motherhood role, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
You know, I was inspired to dobie this thread, but the only link even decent on a search of my terms was a goofy "What kind of Mormon Are You?" post on a Mormon blog.
The tentative title as to be:
Mormons "support Hummus and treat women to Tabouli".
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bok:
Not only good-- we're virtuous. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Scott, we have similar policies. I expect that by now most churches do. One adult (of either gender) is not to be alone with children or youth. When a pastor (or teacher, or committee chair, etc) is with someone for a one-on-one the door is either open, or if it is a private counseling matter the door is closed but someone (usually the secretary) is in the outer office.
An exception is home visits to shut ins, but the one time I've had an issue with it (an elderly male parishioner made a pass at me) I immediately left, wrote up an incident report, notified my District Superintendent and the chair of the Pastor-Parish Relations committee, and never visited him again without another person along.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We come at you sideways. That's how we move, how we think.
So I should be able to easily identify Mormon missionaries by their distinctive sideways walks down the street?
See, this is the image problem the LDS church has; all too many sideways glances. It can creep some people out, don'tcha know?
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
By the time you see us--pfffft.
We're on the doorstep and smiling.
It's not a problem. It's a technique.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I think the thing about the men/women meeting alone in regards to Mormons discussion that is missing is this (at least as much as I read and from my point of view). You guys are focusing too much on the idea that its wrong for them to meet together because something bad is bound to happen. There may be truth in that in some extremes, but I think its rather more like this... Why set yourself up for that at all? Anybody can misunderstand a situation they are seeing. Why put yourself in a situation that you have to later explain? Its not that we aren't adults, we are. But if you can avoid the appearance of wrong doing, wouldn't you do it. I personally think that is where the church is coming from. Don't leave anything for chance.
Its like my old Bishop told me once. He loved beer before he was Mormon. And one day much later after he became Mormon he grabbed one of those non-alcholic beer clones. Just a simple innocent thing. But someone saw him in his yard drinking one, and next thing you know there is this huge rumor running around that he was drinking beer. (This was before he was Bishop btw). Did he do something wrong? No. Did that stop people from thinking he did?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
You know those LDS ads back in the 80s that ended with: "Brought to you by The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints... The Mormons"? Well, you guys should have gone with another choice: "Brought to you by The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints... God's Ninjas!"
I might have converted on the spot!
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"You are saying that they can't have leadership roles because this interferes with Motherhood roles"
I said nothing about getting in the way of motherhood roles. I said because of proscribed roles. A mother is a mother and a father is a father. To interchange is to create a mixing of the roles - no matter how much better a woman or man might be in those positions.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
strip, I would say the problem, and even the sin, was in those thinking such things, not your Bishop, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ah, but he was making them sin, like the young women in immodest clothing make the young men sin. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are you equating leadership to fatherhood then?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Are you equating leadership to fatherhood then?
That's a common LDS meme.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I agree Bok, my point is still the same though. Avoid the appearance of evil is the way to go, at least as a policy for a group.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's an indictment of your culture if a man and a woman meeting is likely going to spur a round of gossip about how they must be sleeping together. The fault lies in the people whose minds go immediately to "They must be having sex." and spreads that around.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There is a certain paranoid preoccupation with sexual propriety in LDS culture. There is also a lot of busy-body gossiping. I'm not sure from whence it comes, but it's there nonetheless.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MrS. it is the "fault" of the culture, but not in the way you imply. It isn't about gossip, but about getting in a situation to start with that creates a possibility of sin. yes, I can see that going in the direction of talabanism. However, there are also other ideas of equal imprtance in Mormon culture that I think keeps it going to that extreme.
MattP., I think its more than meme, but actual theology. One that is shared with other Christians I think.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
Well Squicky you can condemn our culture if you wish. I however don't think its much different than any other in that regard. My point is still the same, if you can put something in place to keep that "gossiping" to a minimum why wouldn't you do it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How is a man and a woman meeting getting in a situation that creates a possibility of sin?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You can keep asking that; I'm still not going to meet with you, Squicky. [edit: comma splice]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MrS. I think at this point you are just coming from a different moral direction than Mormons and even other religions. A man and a women together *can*, not saying "will," bring up the possibility of sex. You know, the birds and the bees. Sex outside of marriage is considered a grave sin, and therefore situations that might increase the likelihood are to be avoided if possible.
Now, I am not buying into that reasoning why women don't hold the Priesthood. My beliefs on that question are different. However, that doesn't mean I don't agree with avoiding such situations when we can.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For the record, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with most of the LDS posters on the later part of this page. I agree with the structure and leadership of the church, but I find the representation of the church culture as pruriently obsessed with who might be breaking their covenants with whom here both revolting and not in accordance with my own experiences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The reasons you wouldn't do it are that it is unfair stereotyping and it discrimininates against women and men who might be very capable and called to certain leadership roles otherwise. In addition to being unfair, it is an enormous waste of potential.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
Squicky, think about it in a broader sense. Man and woman meeting at Ice Cream shop, or Coffee Shop, or at one of their houses. No problems, they are doing it on their own. But now add a church agenda to it. If said people are meeting about an upcoming event, or discussing a family in the ward. Its now considered church business.
Now if one says the other made an advance, in the first scenario, thats between the two of them to work it out. But in the second scenario an organization now has to get involved. As an organization why not set up rules that prevent this type of thing from happening?
I'm speaking in very general terms here people, so don't take this as official policy. This is just my view of why such regulations are in place.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When it comes to church sponsored events, we also have a rule against forming a book group "as a church event". It is a combination of not wanting people to blame the church for anything that happens in a book, and on the other hand not wanting folks to be excluded if they can't afford to order in books from the church owned book company.
However, reading "good" literature is strongly encouraged by the church.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by striplingrz: As an organization why not set up rules that prevent this type of thing from happening?
I agree completely. The rule should be "Don't make advances toward your co-workers at church meetings (or anywhere else if either of you are married to other people)."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:if you can put something in place to keep that "gossiping" to a minimum why wouldn't you do it
No, of course not. I don't believe in submitting to bullies, especially when you aren't doing anything wrong or are doing things that are correct that other people maybe don't agree with.
The solution to unfounded, malicious gossip, to me, is to stop the gossip, not to bend over backwards to not give them something to gossip about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:When it comes to church sponsored events, we also have a rule against forming a book group "as a church event". It is a combination of not wanting people to blame the church for anything that happens in a book, and on the other hand not wanting folks to be excluded if they can't afford to order in books from the church owned book company.
However, reading "good" literature is strongly encouraged by the church.
There is a book group for every ward in my stake, every singles ward that I know of, and one just for the Relief Society in my family ward. Some read only stuff from Deseret Book, but my ward book group just read Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Also, that sort of policy/rule doesn't have anything to do with why the women don't have the priesthood and are subsequently ineligible for the heaviest leadership burdens (Speaking now figuratively and not literally as we did a couple of pages ago.) It doesn't really make sense to speak of callings being higher or lower than one another, as the Branch President (bishop of a smaller congregation) is always reminding me of the scripture about the head saying to the foot "I have no need of thee".
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe the book policy is just our stake, and we were given those two reasons. We had an unofficial book group on the side, but it kind of died off after someone thought "Self Made Man" looked like an interesting book, and I read it, and mentioned we might want to skip that one.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
Squicky, I don't know you very well as I haven't conversed with you prior to this. But I'm wondering what world you live in to think that is even possible. I agree completely with your assertion that that is how it should be on a personal level. I think the same thing. But as an organization (and I'm not just speaking about a church here, you could apply this same rule to a business) you have to put up safeguards to keep yourself out of liability. To say people should have good morals and act like adults is spot on. To imply you think everyone does and always will is silly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is entirely possible that it was a stake decision.
Wait - aren't you here in DC? Was it this stake? What stake are you in?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:A man and a women together *can*, not saying "will," bring up the possibility of sex.
In pretty much the same way, so can a man and a man meeting. And that would be gay sex. Is it considered a bad idea for two guys to meet up?
Heck, a multitude of people all getting together increases the odds of an orgy. Are LDS doomed to a solitary, hermit's existence? Except, in that case, it would be increasing the likelihood of you having sex with yourself.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:When it comes to church sponsored events, we also have a rule against forming a book group "as a church event". It is a combination of not wanting people to blame the church for anything that happens in a book, and on the other hand not wanting folks to be excluded if they can't afford to order in books from the church owned book company.
However, reading "good" literature is strongly encouraged by the church.
There is a book group for every ward in my stake, every singles ward that I know of, and one just for the Relief Society in my family ward. Some read only stuff from Deseret Book, but my ward book group just read Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Do you mean they are organized through the ward? Or simply that they are made-up mostly of members from the ward? Because I think the former is pretty directly discouraged by church policy and has the potential to create uncomfortable situations like the one pooka alluded to.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Annapolis, kat. Our underground book group was where I read Life of Pi which I enjoyed quite a bit.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
Geez Squicky, that was just ridiculous. I guess I'm through with this discussion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I mean that some are organized through the relief society and are announced in relief society, one was started by the activities committee (the Reading Lolita in Tehran one), and I think one might be informal but is advertised through the church listserv.
I know exactly pooka is referring to. That is not my experience - there are at least two official book clubs in two different wards.
---
Okay, I know nothing about the stakes in Maryland. Maybe it is a stake rule there. Whatever it is, it isn't a church-wide rule.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I guess I'm sort of glad to learn the Church doesn't make a global policy on whether book groups are permitted. That seems a bit of micromanaging.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:A man and a women together *can*, not saying "will," bring up the possibility of sex.
In pretty much the same way, so can a man and a man meeting. And that would be gay sex. Is it considered a bad idea for two guys to meet up?
Heck, a multitude of people all getting together increases the odds of an orgy. Are LDS doomed to a solitary, hermit's existence? Except, in that case, it would be increasing the likelihood of you having sex with yourself.
Not the best comparison Mr S. Homosexuality is light years behind heterosexuality in terms of prevalence. Incidentally missionaries are forbidden to sleep in the same bed together in part to prevent that sort of behavior from occuring.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Geez Squicky, that was just ridiculous.
I fail to see how saying a man and a woman meeting increases the chance of them having sex is any different from saying that a man and a man meeting increases the chance of them having sex. Could you explain why this is so ridiculous?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Though sometimes folks just ignore the rules. Like the guideline on not having husbands and wives give the opening and closing prayer of Sacrament meeting, or give the two talks in sacrament, so that single people don't feel excluded. There are congregations that make up their own rules, such as that the opening prayer has to be given by a Melchizedek priesthood holder, which I ran into at my in-laws ward.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Not the best comparison Mr S. Homosexuality is light years behind heterosexuality in terms of prevalence.
But it increases the chance, correct?
I mean, a man and a woman meeting has very, very little to do with if they have sex or not, but I can't argue that it doesn't increase the chance that they will.
If it's a matter of degree, I don't see how the man and the woman things works. If it isn't, then I see no difference between that and two men.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
A lot of wards now have book clubs since the change to the new Enrichment "activities" - small-group whoever's-interested type activities - rather than "meetings" where all the women are encouraged to attend.
We have a RS book group in our ward.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Like the guideline on not having husbands and wives give the opening and closing prayer of Sacrament meeting, or give the two talks in sacrament, so that single people don't feel excluded.
From at least my perspective, a remedy to this problem consistent with what people are saying is to abolish the opening and closing prayers so as to prevent this from happening.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What kind of books do you read and where are you located? I think if we lived in Utah where Church-owned publisher books are in the Libraries, it wouldn't be an issue. We also had to stop having Girl's night out, which was the only Enrichment Activity anyone was consistently attending.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Not the best comparison Mr S. Homosexuality is light years behind heterosexuality in terms of prevalence.
But it increases the chance, correct?
I mean, a man and a woman meeting has very, very little to do with if they have sex or not, but I can't argue that it increases the chance that they will.
If it's a matter of degree, I don't see how the man and the woman things works. If it isn't, then I see no difference between that and two men.
OK look you are right when men and women meet incidentally even at a planned event it might as well be virtually harmless. But say the man and a women work together closely. Say they meet several times a week to discuss policy. Say they start to admire each other as friends. Can you really say that the potential for somebody to step over the line is not substantially greater then it would be if it was two men working together or two women?
You are right there is risk in it being two men or women, but Mormons are not insane in that they avoid ANYTHING that could possibly end with negative results, if we did that we could do nothing, which in of itself would be wrong.
And now my head hurts.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mr. Squicky, I have to say your behavior is not consistent with the advice you were giving Mr. Bradley in the PvP WoW thread. Just sayin'.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry - I don't go to the book clubs. Since I started school again, that's pretty much put the kibosh on weeknight activities.
It definitely isn't just Deseret Book books, however.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mr. Squicky, I have to say your behavior is not consistent with the advice you were giving Mr. Bradley in the PvP WoW thread. Just sayin'.
I have no idea what you mean, pooka. Could you explain? It sounds like you are trying to insult me. I would ask if that's what you are trying, could you just come out and say it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, it seems a bit like you're jumping up and down and saying "OMG LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to quote your first post on that thread. I could be wrong.
Also, I looked up the Taliban on wikipedia, and I guess I don't really feel most Mormons are the same, since the Taliban seem to innovate new commandments and restrictions to place on people. Though, there have been those discussions about Mormons, such as with the R rated movie argument.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, it seems a bit like you're jumping up and down and saying "OMG LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to quote your first post on that thread. I could be wrong.
I don't see that. He's just taking the position that rather than simply agreeing to disagree, he'd like to challenge the validity of the arguments being made in this thread.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But say the man and a women work together closely. Say they meet several times a week to discuss policy. Say they start to admire each other as friends. Can you really say that the potential for somebody to step over the line is not substantially greater then it would be if it was two men working together or two women?
I do this. Every week. As do thousands of other men and women. If there was ever an issue -- if, for example, I started to feel sexually attracted to one of my male colleagues or he to me, then it would be time to take steps to be sure that we were never in a position where we could act on that temptation. But I will NOT avoid perfectly innocent and productive work sessions because two adults of the opposite sex who have taken vows of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage might be slightly more likely to break those vows, violate their professional ethics, and betray their respective spouses than two people of the same sex are to realize that they are attracted to each other.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
dkw: I admire you for being so mature, I really do. But I honestly don't think the average person does do this. More likely they try to just keep it boxed in, or else look to other means to fulfill those fantasies. It usually results in crisis management rather then prevention.
Many of these rules that Mormonism now has are rules that exist BECAUSE of incidents that neccesitated the creation of specific guidelines. They have not always existed.
edit: Again I am not saying people WILL succumbto lust or even WILL be tempted. But I'd rather be inconvenienced ALOT then to slip up even once.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MrS. I think that your actual question is, why have rules?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: mph, ElJay was responding to BB's statement: "My belief that men and women have problems when they work together to me is not just an idea, its a fact of life as demonstrated by our high divorce rates, instances of domestic violence, rape, and Oprah."
She was asking exactly what you did, "what possible connection you could [BlackBlade] be drawing between men and women working together and domestic violence"?
dkw is completely correct in her interpretation of my post, and BlackBlade I would still appreciate an answer.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I still go out to lunch with my friend who is a guy. He's like my brother. I've taken some flak online from other Mormons because of this-- but never from anyone in my ward, or my husband, or anyone else.
My mom had totally fraternal friendships with men when I was growing up, and I think that model did me good. I think it is ridiculous that I am judged for being friends with a man and spending time alone with him once in a while (when he is in town, which is rarely.) And I don't agree that there is any doctrinal basis for saying that I shouldn't do that, and I'm not going to ruin my friendship over it.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I honestly don't think the average person does do this. More likely they try to just keep it boxed in, or else look to other means to fulfill those fantasies. It usually results in crisis management rather then prevention.
Black Blade, seriously, adults do exactly what dana described. Learning to, you know, control yourself is part of being a grown up. It is most certainly, certainly not the case that "most" or even a large porportion of situations where adult men and women are in the same room result in mass adultery. I am seriously floored that you think that is what happens in most cases. I'm surprised at you that you think it's likely.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't believe that grown ups are actually grown up. In fact, I see drug use, infidelity, broken marriages, increased crime (in and out of business situtations), lying, violence, proliferation of pornography, etc. as an indication that humans are actually "devolving" morally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:But I honestly don't think the average person does do this. More likely they try to just keep it boxed in, or else look to other means to fulfill those fantasies. It usually results in crisis management rather then prevention.
Black Blade, seriously, adults do exactly what dana described. Learning to, you know, control yourself is part of being a grown up. It is most certainly, certainly not the case that "most" or even a large porportion of situations where adult men and women are in the same room result in mass adultery. I am seriously floored that you think that is what happens in most cases. I'm surprised at you that you think it's likely.
ELJay: Was your question, "How does domestic violence indicate a problem when men and women work together?"
KQ: I totally agree the problem is with the church members. In 11th grade all my friends drank as a form of recreation. I was the designated driver every time. My parents had no trouble believing I was not drinking, I am positive many Mormons would not have seen things that way. In 12th grade almost ALL my friends were girls and I spent ALOT of time alone with them in unsupervised circumstances. It would never have occured to me to try anything sexual with them at all. As an adult now you could stick me in a room with the most attractive and beautiful girl that you could conjure up for me and I would sooner drop dead then cheat on my wife.
Heck maybe I am wrong and only 10% of adults would have the problems I have described. I think the percentage is way higher, but if 10% of all close encounters end in at best just thoughts and at worst actual attempts at intimacy that by itself is enough to me to setup SOME guidelines.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Occ: So at what time and in what place (given wildly divergent attitudes towards the 5+ issues you listed in different places in the world at any one specific given time in human history) were humans most "evolved" morally?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Isn't that why organizations have rules against "fraternizing" with co-workers, and there are laws against sexual harassment?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but if 10% of all close encounters end in at best just thoughts and at worst actual attempts at intimacy that by itself is enough to me to setup SOME guidelines.
Again, I agree. And the guidlines should be: 1) Don't hit on your co-workers (paid or volunteer). 2) Don't cheat on your spouse.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, even a non-religious person such as myself follows those guidelines.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but if 10% of all close encounters end in at best just thoughts and at worst actual attempts at intimacy that by itself is enough to me to setup SOME guidelines.
Again, I agree. And the guidlines should be: 1) Don't hit on your co-workers (paid or volunteer). 2) Don't cheat on your spouse.
So true.
If an individual person has a problem with those guidelines, then that person should set his or her own guidelines about limiting contact. But that doesn't mean everyone else should have to follow them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Again I am not saying people WILL succumbto lust or even WILL be tempted. But I'd rather be inconvenienced ALOT then to slip up even once.
What kat and dkw have said. Also, you are really underestimating the level of discrimination when you refer to it as being "inconvenienced." I don't think that priesthood, at least in Catholicism, should be taken that lightly.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Occ, nothing about that article implies things are getting worse. Further, most indicators of crime have, looking over time:
And this is in an age where certain crimes are much more likely to be reported than in years past (I'm particularly thinking about rape) which would apply a pressure to keep the rate higher.
-Bok
[ June 28, 2007, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bok: I'd rather you not lump what I am saying with Occasional. No offense to Occasional, I don't think we are making the same argument.
Also violent crime and property crime have little to do with what specifically I am talking about in regards to behaviors between the sexes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Mucus, I would say most of the Western world before WWI, and perhaps the rest of the Western world after WWII. Not saying there wasn't sin and evil, but the social acceptance for such was much less and therefore the prevailance less. I am afraid that many places in the Middle East are more morally advanced than Western society.
Bok, I am talking about morality over historical time and not over a few decades. Besides, crime is only One indicator among others I have listed.
[ June 28, 2007, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, sorry, I conflated you two. I will edit you out.
-Bok
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am afraid that many places in the Middle East are more morally advanced than Western society.
That's something all right. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You might want to clarify that, Occasional. Otherwise people might be inclined to think that you consider things like "honor killings" and the extreme subjugation of women to be more morally correct than consensual sex.
If that isn't what you mean, explaining further would clear that up.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
No need to clarify. I know what I mean even if others think it means the worst aspects of Near East society. If anything it shows a kind of bigotry against Muslims and Arabs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Well, I know what I mean too. Glad we agree on at least one thing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No need to clarify. I know what I mean even if others think it means the worst aspects of Near East society.
What about those of us who have no idea what you mean?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How about, at the least, don't assume the worst, such as what kmb brought up?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a comment made in a thread about Mormons treating women like the Taliban treats women.
But if you're okay with the confusion (if there is confusion), so be it. I would think that havihng other people know what you mean would be a good thing. You don't have to post to know what you think.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lets put it this way, I don't agree with the extremes they go to. However, I do agree with some of the religious reasoning for what leads them to those extremes. That would include a love of God, rejection of sexual provocation in dress and behavior, laying down the law, respect for the traditonal roles of men and women (more or less traditional families), and etc.
I have always had a respect for Muslim's sense of religion and morality, even if strongy disagree with the more violent factions. It saddens me that for the most part Islam has been "taken over" by a cruel bloodthirsty element. They have so much going for them that Western society has snubbed and thrown away.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think a case could be made that the very insistence on traditional gender roles, the idea that women's dress can provoke sexual immorality, and the willingness to "lay down the law" are directly responsible for creating an environment that fosters violence and extremism.
The more freedoms a society enjoys, the less able extreme factions are to violently impose their morality on others.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
MC, that might be. However, I think I share their morality more than I do yours or the current Western sense of same. Besides, you would have to actually make the case.
Edit: Thinks of Turkey and Israel (seperately). I believe in freedom, but I also believe freedom can destroy its own worth.
[ June 28, 2007, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, I think I share their morality more than I do yours or the current Western sense of same.
Of this I have no doubt.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, I would say most of the Western world before WWI, and perhaps the rest of the Western world after WWII.
Please elaborate further. That is still a pretty large range (and set of countries). Perhaps I can make it easier.
1) What would you consider to be (or have been) the most morally evolved society (defined as a specific country at a specific time)?
2) Give an example of a Western country that reached its peak morally before WWI (and at what time) and an example of a Western country that reached its peak after WWII.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that "evolution" and "progress" are both very poor analogies for comparing morailty.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think one of the advantages to having female clergy is that it permits one-on-one pastoral counseling for women who are uncomfortable with being alone with a member of the opposite sex. Additionally, my experience with female pastors is that they aren't noticeably different in preaching style or how they interact with their congregation.
Disclaimer: the following is from a Protestant Christian view, so it may not apply to your church, particularly those who derive their beliefs about gender roles from tradition, LDS scripture, etc.
Much of the prohibition on women clergy is found in the epistles. In particular, one of Paul's letters says that women should be silent in church and should not teach (I forget whether they can't teach at all or can't teach men). At any rate, those letters were written for a different culture, a different place, and a different time. I think that we should consider that not all of these statements were meant to apply literally and forever. What if these statements were concessions to the weaknesses of the cultures that existed then? I'll admit a bias against statements that people can't do a certain job solely because of their gender.* In addition, the evidence seems to be that women both feel a calling to ministry and are capable of performing all the duties related to ministry. Perhaps there is something mystical that we aren't aware of, but my inclination is to think that we misinterpreted rather than that there is something we can't detect that is the basis for the commandment. Therefore, I tend to interpret the statements about women's roles in the church as specific to that situation, not universal.
I am less concerned with the way that other churches view the roles of women, within reason (abuse, for example, is not "within reason."). If you choose to belong to a culture that has stricter gender roles, and you're satisfied that it is God's will and the right thing for you, that's all right. However, I am most definitely not okay with any attempts to impose those gender roles on outsiders. If you feel it's necessary to avoid associating with a member of the opposite sex who is not your spouse, that's all right. I might think it's a bad idea, but I'm not going to try to stop you, and I won't condemn you for it. However, please keep in mind that plenty of people manage to have close relationships without having sex enter the picture. You might think it's a bad idea, but please don't condemn me for it, either.
*Gender alone shouldn't be the basis for deciding whether a person qualifies for a job, though I'm sure if I thought long and hard enough, I could think of exceptions. At any rate, Pooka asked about people's opinions on women in combat. I say that if a woman can meet all the physical requirements, she should be permitted in combat. I do not think that the bar should be lowered to avoid "discriminating" against women, even if that means that only a tiny fraction of women who want to be in combat are permitted to do so.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can keep asking that; I'm still not going to meet with you, Squicky.
I was Elder's Quorum president. There was never a time where fulfilling my calling required me to spend lots of one-on-one time with the Relief Society president. There was never even a hint of that need.
It wasn't an inconvenience; it wasn't necessary at all. Anything that both the EQ and the RS had to be involved in had the involvement of the entire Ward Council (that's the male and female leaders of the church).
Part of this is due to the separation of the men and women's organization; defined responsibilities make meetings LESS necessary. The transparent nature of the Ward Council (we know what each other organization is doing, and what they are responsible for) also assists in keeping one-on-one meetings non-existent.
Also...there's this thing called the telephone. And e-mail.
____________________
My wife is in a book club in our ward, but they kind of stick to the Deseret Special of the Month. She has a great dislike for Mormon-centric literature; I can understand why. Most Mormon-centric writers are not very good.
I think most of the ladies go for the friendshipping, not the literature.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think one of the advantages to having female clergy is that it permits one-on-one pastoral counseling for women who are uncomfortable with being alone with a member of the opposite sex.
I don't disagree. In Mormonism, the Relief Society president and Visiting Teachers takes on much of the responsibility for pastoral counseling. (Visiting Teachers are called to visit each female member of the ward and to generally be their friend, help them spiritually, etc. Just about every adult female in the ward is a Visiting Teacher, and they have three or four sisters whom they visit)
The Bishop is available to confess to and to set the churchy machinery running if necessary. (For example, if there is spousal abuse, the Bishop can find aid, obtain marriage counselors, etc) If there are material needs, the Bishop has access to the Bishop's storehouse (a warehouse with lots of food and emergency equipment) and can respond quickly.
It's been my experience that if it's not a problem of sin, that Mormon women are more prone to rely on their friends for spiritual advice than on the counsel of ecclesiastical leaders.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought I was done with this thread, but it came back to me this morning that a lot of the people who are horrified at the suggestion that adults might be tempted to adultery haven't been through the 7 year itch. I got it a 4 years, but, still... I didn't do anything, and I know I'm morally suspect anyway. Isn't OSC always saying there's nothing virtuous about not sinning if you're never tempted?
At any rate, the policies regarding separation of sex are policies. The division of responsibilities by sex is doctrinal. The adult behavior thing is apart from the doctrine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:adults might be tempted to adultery haven't been through the 7 year itch.
Are we talking about adult Vulcans?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The idea that you can prevent co-workers from having an affair by not letting them have meetings together seems similar to how you can prevent underage drinking by having special stores that only sell alcohol.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that "evolution" and "progress" are both very poor analogies for comparing morailty.
Indeed, which is why I also quoted it (evolved) the first time I asked for clarification. However, I was (and still am) more interested in the thought process behind the idea, so I figured, why quibble about terminology.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
MC:
I don't follow your analogy.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Scott, the analogy is simple as I have said before. It isn't really about "interactions between the sexes" and more about making rules at all. MC is essentially asking why have rules if they are going to be broken anyway? Although adults use it, the argument is mostly a teenage one.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Occasional: Not quite, but you're starting to think, and I like that sort of behavior
I'm trying to make the point that to me, preventing men and women from working together based on the idea that working together will make them more likely to commit adultery is just plain silly.
People who aren't going to have an affair can manage to keep their pants on, even when working in the same office as someone they're attracted to. If, on the other hand, they want to sleep together, having them work in different buildings isn't going to stop them any more than having liquor stores keeps teenagers from drinking alcohol.
If someone wants to do something against the rules, putting something slightly out of reach isn't going to stop them.
Besides, if you're establishing someone as your moral and spiritual compass, do you really want it to be someone with such a propensity to sin that they can only manage to avoid it by refusing to associate with the opposite sex?
If a person is unable to control their base urges, when that sort of behavior is explicitly considered a sin in their belief system, shouldn't they spend some time on the beam in their own eye, before tending to their congregation's motes?
I suppose it's just a mystery to me, why anyone would consider it so difficult to work with people of the opposite sex. I've done it all my life, and never slept with any of them. Most of the people I know work with opposite sex co-workers every day. I just don't get where the idea is coming from.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think it's more about making draconian rules that still don't have the preventative impact that you're looking for.
It's more along the lines of me making the rule that I never get in a car or go near a roadway so that I don't have to worry about being in an automobile accident. Yeah, it might work, but it monumentally inconveniences me and there are much simpler ways to prevent car accidents. Like being a responsible driver.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think we are running into, as I have said, two different beliefs about human nature. There are those who trust that humanity has a sense of moral responsibility (as a whole). They will argue that the best thing to do is trust rather than hinder. Then there are those, like myself, who from my experiences and what I have seen from people have NO trust in the moral abilities of even adults. They will argue that it isn't about taking away all chances of sin, but minimizing them when possible. Of course people who are determined will find a way to sin. So what? We are all sinners and have weaknesses of the flesh no matter how "responsible" we might think we are. Usually it is when we think we are oh so mature that the fall becomes the most likely and the hardest. I have seen it happen many times. The best thing to do is, within reason (and obviously that is arguable what that means), try to maximize the protection against doing things that shouldn't be done. That is as much in personal life as in social situations.
Mind, I agree with pooka about the main discussion, "the [LDS] policies regarding separation of sex are policies. The division of responsibilities by sex is doctrinal. The adult behavior thing is apart from the doctrine." That should be repeated more than once. After all, what started this was a theological conjecture and in no way represents a solid belief (unless that has since changed) or article of faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree that there are two groups of thought here, but they are not divided along the Mormon/Non-Mormon lines.
I would argue that locking people up with created walls to prevent them from having the opportunity to choose the right is distinctly un-Mormon. If that were better, then why would the Lord even bother sending us to this world?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think we are running into, as I have said, two different beliefs about human nature. There are those who trust that humanity has a sense of moral responsibility (as a whole). They will argue that the best thing to do is trust rather than hinder. Then there are those, like myself, who from my experiences and what I have seen from people have NO trust in the moral abilities of even adults. They will argue that it isn't about taking away all chances of sin, but minimizing them when possible. Of course people who are determined will find a way to sin. So what? We are all sinners and have weaknesses of the flesh no matter how "responsible" we might think we are. Usually it is when we think we are oh so mature that the fall becomes the most likely and the hardest. I have seen it happen many times. The best thing to do is, within reason (and obviously that is arguable what that means), try to maximize the protection against doing things that shouldn't be done. That is as much in personal life as in social situations.
I disagree completely. I think that by protecting people from acting immorally you make it a bigger deal when people do so.
People as a whole are trustworthy, moral and generally good.
And, while I don't want to turn this into a rant against religion, I think we perceive people as sinners because we take things that are morally neutral (ex: 2 adults consensually agreeing to an intimate relationship) and we pass judgement on them as bad/evil/immoral.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Isn't the whole point of sin the opportunity to reject it, and in doing so become a better person? I'm not suggesting handing a drug addict a pile of heroine and asking him to be strong, but it's silly to live your life locked in a room so you'll never have the opportunity to do something wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Isn't the whole point of sin the opportunity to reject it, and in doing so become a better person? I'm not suggesting handing a drug addict a pile of heroine and asking him to be strong, but it's silly to live your life locked in a room so you'll never have the opportunity to do something wrong.
OK well obviously then we are all arguing on what that middle ground is.
People usually don't get into a situation with the intent of having an affair. The opportunity begins to present itself and they do not guard against it while its easy and wait until its an incredible test of will power to resist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Black Blade, maybe the point is that guarding against sin doesn't require a physical wall and ghettoization of the self.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:The opportunity begins to present itself and they do not guard against it while its easy and wait until its an incredible test of will power to resist.
It should probably be repeated...it seems the practical solution would be to educate people as to the different situations and how best to guard against them, as opposed to creating rules that prohibit things that are not actually wrong or bad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Black Blade, maybe the point is that guarding against sin doesn't require a physical wall and ghettoization of the self.
Could you clarify what you mean by ghettoization? Also does your car have a governor on it? Are there speed limits on the roads? I don't see how making guidelines such as, "If two people of the opposite sex are meeting in a room keep the door open," is anything remotely like a wall that is oppressive and keeps us from showing how mature we all are.
edit: I'm no longer talking about the carnal sensual nature of human beings as justification for keeping the sexes from both acting in intimate leadership roles. This is in regards to rules that set guidelines on male female interaction in general.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think "keep the door open" is a fine rule. Or if the subject being discussed is confidential, a small window in the door so that the people can be seen but not heard would also work.
That's very different, in my mind, than saying that men and women shouldn't work closely together or in positions where they would be required to meet with each other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In a cross threads post:
One of the many things I love about America is that, for the most part, we don't get to "lay down the law" about about the sexual morality of consenting adults.
And on the religious aspect: where does loving God indicate judging the sexual morals of anybody else? I would think that is rather specifically discouraged in the gospels.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots,
I get that you don't believe certain laws and you think most of the stuff concerning sexual morality was made up and you think it doesn't matter, but it takes an extraordinarily revisionist and edited reading of the Bible and even the Gospels to say God has never concerned himself at all with sexual morality.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe she meant that God doesn't think we should be concening ourselves with other people's sexual morality. Not that God isn't concerned with it.
And that wasn't a remotely fair summarization of her stated beliefs about sexual morality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I said that it discouraged judging the sexual morality of others. I believe it discourages judging others in general.
edit: Thanks for the clarification, dkw.
I also believe that, in my many attempts, I have completely failed to get you to understand what my sexual morality actually is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To be perfectly honest, in my first encounter with your expression of your vision of sexual morality, you were justifying long-term adultery. In all probability, this has colored everything since.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
He also commanded people to "remove the beam from your own eye so that you may see more clearly to help remove the mote from your brother's."
Nothing there about leaving your brother to spend his days blinking back tears.
(Keep in mind that this admonition *follows* the oft-quoted, oft-misunderstood phrase "Judge not that ye be not judged.")
Or, heck-- you go read Matthew 7, and tell me that Christ doesn't want us to "judge" others. That whole chapter is about wise judgement.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
But were the scribes inspired to write it? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think "keep the door open" is a fine rule. Or if the subject being discussed is confidential, a small window in the door so that the people can be seen but not heard would also work.
When I was a district leader on my mission, some of the sisters in my zone (not under my...er...supervision, I guess) were having some companionship difficulties. I was friends with both the sisters, and was asked by them to mediate/counsel.
Even though nothing would have ever happened, we still had a moment of discomfort being alone in the same room together. For normal Mormon leaders, it might not be a big deal; for Elder and Sister missionaries (or, more specifically, for ME) it was...something like a breach of social protocol. We decided to leave the door open, and we had a good, healing conversation.
In any case, my point is largely that I agree with DKW. I think.
quote:That's very different, in my mind, than saying that men and women shouldn't work closely together or in positions where they would be required to meet with each other.
Mormon organizations are formed such that a male and female leader would rarely need to meet alone anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
How far back do these manuscripts go? How do you decide between scribes adding or omitting stories?
edit: just curious, I admit those questions are pretty complicated and would take quite a bit of time to answer.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Interesting. I wonder what the motivation for adding that particular story was? Any ideas?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Interesting. I wonder what the motivation for adding that particular story was? Any ideas?
DUH! To add more emphasis on the Jesus/Mary Magedeline love story so that the Bible would be more marketable to female readers!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually MC, did the later scribes have material that we currently do not? Although I am not (and at least by theory Mormons aren't) textual literalists, I don't buy into every theory of Higher Criticism. This is one instance where I don't think later vs earlier manuscripts says much about the authentication. To me it fits in with the general subject of the chapter and seems to be something that Jesus would do from other similar examples.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, I would say most of the Western world before WWI, and perhaps the rest of the Western world after WWII.
Please elaborate further. That is still a pretty large range (and set of countries). Perhaps I can make it easier.
1) What would you consider to be (or have been) the most morally evolved society (defined as a specific country at a specific time)?
2) Give an example of a Western country that reached its peak morally before WWI (and at what time) and an example of a Western country that reached its peak after WWII.
Bump for Occasional in case he(or she? not clear from the profile) missed it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How far back do these manuscripts go? How do you decide between scribes adding or omitting stories?
The earliest gospel texts are from around the third century. I'm not sure about that specific text, though.
Textual critics use a number of methods for evaluating differences in different versions to attempt to determine the most correct version, including comparisons of style and vocabulary of "questionable" texts with the larger text in which they are found. They also look at regional differences - if a particular difference occurs only in an isolated geographical area it is likely to have been introduced in that area and the version found everywhere else is more likely to be correct.
It is possible that the earlier texts are "descended" from a different branch than the later ones and they actually represent an erroneous omission of the story, but the people who make a career out of figuring this sort of thing out don't seem to think that's the case here.
I highly recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus" as it goes into great depth about how textual criticism works and how these conclusions are reached. It's a fascinating read.
quote:Interesting. I wonder what the motivation for adding that particular story was? Any ideas?
One theory I recall is that it was part of the oral tradition which was written in the margins by a scribe and incorporated into the text by later scribes, perhaps mistakenly believing that it was actually supposed to be part of the text.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: To add more emphasis on the Jesus/Mary Magedeline love story so that the Bible would be more marketable to female readers!
Hmm...if this was their motive, they could have done LOADS better at pointing out that the woman Jesus didn't kill was actually Mary Magdalene.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Matt: But what of many manuscripts of questionable authenticity that were purged by the Catholic church along with the spurious ones when it could not be decided definitively if the questionable ones were genuine?
Or would those now lost writings have little impact on the conclusions scholars make today?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One theory I recall is that it was part of the oral tradition which was written in the margins by a scribe and later incorporated in the text by later scribes, perhaps mistakenly believing that it was actually supposed to be part of the text.
OH! Yeah, I remember hearing that.
(That doesn't invalidate it as a "true" story about Jesus, though.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: To add more emphasis on the Jesus/Mary Magedeline love story so that the Bible would be more marketable to female readers!
Hmm...if this was their motive, they could have done LOADS better at pointing out that the woman Jesus didn't kill was actually Mary Magdalene.
Rules for story telling were not so well developed back then Scott GEEZ! You might as well complain that the authors botched things up when they omitted almost all of Jesus' childhood and early adult years.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Or would those now lost writings have little impact on the conclusions scholars make today?
You can only work with what you've got. I'm not sure how that particular destruction would be factored in any differently than the countless other manuscripts that have been lost over time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: To be perfectly honest, in my first encounter with your expression of your vision of sexual morality, you were justifying long-term adultery. In all probability, this has colored everything since.
I don't recall the conversation, but given the context, it is not unlikely. It would very much depend on the circumstances.
kat, you and I do have very different ideas about what constitutes sexual morality. That is entirely different than my not believing that sexual morality matters. It does matter.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
mucus, you don't have to bump anymore. I am not intersted in answering the question and have moved on.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Or would those now lost writings have little impact on the conclusions scholars make today?
You can only work with what you've got. I'm not sure how that particular destruction would be factored in any differently than the countless other manuscripts that have been lost over time.
Well besides calling into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You might as well complain that the authors botched things up when they omitted almost all of Jesus' childhood and early adult years.
You know actually, I believe that the...ermm...Gnostics? Stoics? wrote that Jesus spent the time from his 12th year to his baptism in Heaven.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well besides calling into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today.
Well, there's that, but that's not the goal of textual critics. They just try to figure out, based on the existing evidence, what the original text is most likely to have been.
The takeaway is that you shouldn't be looking to the gospels for the literal truth (small 't') about anything, as there are more differences between the extant New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament and, as I mentioned, even our most recent texts are centuries younger than the events they describe.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
BB, now as a Mormon you know Joseph Smith called "into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today" in similar manner. I know a few Mormons who study the textual history of the Bible by comarison to LDS modern Scripture. Obviously this approach is only acceptable within the faith.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: mucus, you don't have to bump anymore. I am not intersted in answering the question and have moved on.
Fair enough. Although I would note that between your ignoring of the question and mph's related point, our unguided interpretation of your silence is probably more damning than any well-reasoned answer you could give.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you insist on assuming the worst, that's certainly true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: BB, now as a Mormon you know Joseph Smith called "into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today" in similar manner. I know a few Mormons who study the textual history of the Bible by comarison to LDS modern Scripture. Obviously this approach is only acceptable within the faith.
What is your point? Joseph Smith said that God informed him that the bible had become corrupted and the Book of Mormon makes the same claim. He did not pretend to have some sort of scholarly proof on the matter. Right now I am considering how scriptural scholars who don't bother with inspiration from God dicuss how the Bible of today compares to writings as they were first written.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's in bad taste to try to pressure somebody into answering a question they've said they don't want to. There are many reasons why one might decline to answer a question. If he doesn't want to answer, I think we should leave it at that, and instead of assuming we know the answer, assume that we don't.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"What is your point?" Sorry for the misunderstanding. It just seemed your reaction was rather negative to the whole thing. I mean, to say it brings the whole integrety of the Bible as we have it today into question is a serious charge to some people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If you insist on assuming the worst, that's certainly true.
What exactly have I insisted on assuming?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know, but you're the one that said that your interpretation of his silence was damning.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I think it's in bad taste to try to pressure somebody into answering a question they've said they don't want to.
I don't see why it is in poor taste to request someone to support a hard to believe claim. If someone makes a claim, they should either be able to support it or have at least some reason for not wanting to support it. Refusing to do either makes it pretty hard to take the claim seriously, which is all that Mucus was pointing out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Refusing to do either makes it pretty hard to take the claim seriously, which is all that Mucus was pointing out.
That is not all that Mucus was pointing out. He used the word "damning," which means a heck of a lot more than "not having one's claim taken seriously."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
It's certainly damning to the validity of the claim and the honesty in which it was made, which makes it hard to take the claim seriously.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Repeating it doesn't make it true: it's only damning if you assume the worst.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Like I care what you think. In fact, that is the reason I am not answering; because I don't care what you think and your reactions have shown that you don't care what I think. Therefore I am putting you and your question on *ignore* and would hope others will do the same (mostly because I am finding the recent direction of this post much more interesting).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
And then he said, "Go now, and sin no more." If that's not a judgement, what is? All he's refusing to do is to apply the death penalty.
(You will understand that I do not believe this incident actually happened.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sheesh. "Probably more damning" is what I actually said. This is not an assumption (which carries in my mind the implication of certainty or 100% probability), but rather an assigning of a low probability, a Bayesian prior on that and future assertions if you will.
If one comes across an assertion, especially a controversial one, one naturally demands proof. If proof is cannot be provided, I cannot help but note that the assertion is likely unfounded. Indeed, no proof is decidedly worse than even weak proof. (Thanks for already pointing this out Camus)
For Dagonee: This is specifically why I chose "damning" rather than your second phrase. Weak proof only damages the current assertion being made. No proof (indeed, active avoidance of proof) is not only damaging to the assertion but causes *everlasting* damage to any future claims, since it is more likely that no proof will be provided for those as well.
He/she is certainly entitled to not answer, which is why I noted at the beginning "fair enough." However, I am fully entitled to be skeptical about the claim. If pointing out my skepticism publically counts as pressure or bad taste, then I think I'm ok with that as long as it is kept in mind that it was intended as neither.
Occasional: Why would I ask if I was not interested? As MPH point touched, why would I suspend judgement on whether your analogy of "evolution" was appropriate until you had fully made your case, if indeed I had already made up my mind?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes. I don't think that story validates kmboots' claim that Christ doesn't want us to judge others for their sexual (im)morality.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
And then he said, "Go now, and sin no more." If that's not a judgement, what is? All he's refusing to do is to apply the death penalty.
(You will understand that I do not believe this incident actually happened.)
Oh I don't think Jesus was saying that he himself could not judge others. You will find MANY instances where Jesus calls it how he sees it.
I'm in the crowd who believes God wants us to judge righteously not "You must never judge others."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My goodness, but we have different understandings of the gospel!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmbboots, that shouldn't be surprising. If we had the same understanding of the gospel we would probably be in the same denomination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is surprising to me just how different. I have experienced several different denominations and yours is the first I've heard that advocated judging our neighbors.
Too much a derail to go into here, I think. And the gap seems too wide to be bridged. Some new insight for me into LDS, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In fairness to the Mormons, I must say I've never heard of any denomination that did, in fact, refrain from judging their neighbours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Quite true. In my understanding, though, that is a failing rather than a virtue.
To each their own, though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of Catholics, Protestants and LDS alike who are all too willing to pass judgement on other people's sexual morality, whether or not they have any comprehension of that person's sexual mores, or, in fact, even know that person.
I also wish to say that I land pretty solidly in Kate's court on this one with regards to any sin, not just sexual sin. I see a lot in the Gospels about being more concerned with the planks in our own eyes than the specks in our neighbors', several instances and variations of "as you judge others, so will you be judged", many injunctions and epithets hurled against those who were considered the most righteous in the community (and at any in general who considered themselves righteous or upstanding), and of course the parables of the Prodigal Son and, to a lesser extent, the Good Samaritan which pretty much turn justice on its ear.
So, I think there's precedent within Christianity for considering ourselves to not own the yardstick by which others are to be measured.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Measuring people by your own yardstick is bad.
Meter sticks, on the other hand...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
In regards to the leaving the door open/having a window in the door during meetings, our library's group study rooms have a window in the front of them, and as far as I know, the students have no trouble refraining from jumping each others' bones in that situation. So one more vote for windows.
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It is surprising to me just how different. I have experienced several different denominations and yours is the first I've heard that advocated judging our neighbors."
I think "advocating" is going too far in LDS beliefs. More like, we must make judgements because we must decide how best to interact with a sinful world. It goes, I think, into the LDS understanding of authority. Many times we are responsible for people within our spheres of spiritual influence. This includes family, congregations, visiting and home teaching, etc. We are asked to take care of ourselves and others. It's not about judging so much as taking care of others.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmboots, I think you may be reading a bit too much into the Mormon position on the subject of judgment.
The balance we try to strike is between two extremes — judging and criticizing others as a sin that indicates a severe lack of perspective and humility on one side, and hyper-tolerance that threatens the very concept of sin on the other.
When a Mormon swaps the phrase "judge not" with "judge righteously", he isn't negating Christ's position AT ALL. Rather, he is making the additional point that, while you should not harshly judge individuals, you should still maintain within your consciousness the willingness to discern good from evil. You don't have to say, "That guy is a bad person and I hate him!" to still recognize "What that guy is doing is wrong. I should avoid that action myself, and work to ameliorate its impact when he does it."
What we're trying to avoid is the classic situation where a religious person says, "X is a sin," and a committer of that proposed sin responds, "Don't be judging me! Jesus said not to judge!" If we take that person's position seriously every time, we become incapable of recognizing and preventing sin, because pretty much ANY statement against a sinful action could be protested as "judgmental".
So we teach a more thorough understanding of that doctrine. We should not judge people — that's the Lord's job, not ours. But we SHOULD evaluate actions, and we ARE allowed to say "X is a sin". We have to, if we expect to maintain our way of life and teach our children, and each other, to follow Christ and His commandments.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "It is surprising to me just how different. I have experienced several different denominations and yours is the first I've heard that advocated judging our neighbors."
I think "advocating" is going too far in LDS beliefs. More like, we must make judgements because we must decide how best to interact with a sinful world.
I really enjoy being able to not have to look at the world as sinful. In fact, I consider it pretty awesome, not at all fallen and not generally to be judged and feared.
*edit to add quote for clarity
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the inclination to "lay down the law" regarding sexual morality when it comes to consenting adults, crosses that line. Even when one is not inclined to go to the same violent extremes as some do in the Middle East.
MC: It is possible to be religious and still have that.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I really enjoy being able to not have to look at the world as sinful. In fact, I consider it pretty awesome, not at all fallen and not generally to be judged and feared.
For the record, I don't look at it that way, either. There is a lot about the world that is broken and scary, but I think God appreciates it, and us, for our glorious potential, and I prefer to see the world in those terms.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think one of the saddest things I was taught in Sunday school was the concept of living in the "age of lead." I really don't like the idea that everything is just going downhill or that things were so much better way back whenever.
-pH
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I think that the inclination to "lay down the law" regarding sexual morality when it comes to consenting adults, crosses that line.
I haven't been able to keep up with this thread religiously, so I may be missing the core of the argument you're having. I personally can't justify most laws that would tell consenting adults what to do or not do in the bedroom, and the LDS Church doesn't promote such laws, either. That sort of thing is in the jurisdiction of religion and culture, not government.
But once you get within the bounds of religion, there is more room to set standards. The LDS Church is still very careful to steer clear of telling married couples what to do. But the requirement of marriage, and of absolute commitment to marriage, is a perfectly justifiable thing for a religion to preach. If people want to reject the preaching, they're free to, and they won't go to jail. But if a religion can't teach and promote a social pattern that values commitment, healthy relationships, and family stability, for fear of accidentally seeming judgmental of people who choose not to live by that religion's rules, then what's the point? Might as well just have a social club if your religion doesn't get to make statements about right and wrong ...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pH, that is pretty darn sad. Also something I had never heard before. I was always taught that we are working toward the kingdom of God.
Puppy, My diversion was in response (in general) to this:
quote: I don't agree with the extremes they go to. However, I do agree with some of the religious reasoning for what leads them to those extremes. That would include a love of God, rejection of sexual provocation in dress and behavior, laying down the law, respect for the traditonal roles of men and women (more or less traditional families), and etc.
I have always had a respect for Muslim's sense of religion and morality, even if strongy disagree with the more violent factions. It saddens me that for the most part Islam has been "taken over" by a cruel bloodthirsty element. They have so much going for them that Western society has snubbed and thrown away.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Didn't it have to do with the statue Nebuchanezzar saw in the dream that Daniel interpreted? I remember that we were in the "feet of clay" part of history and that seemed lame to me at the time too.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We are taught something totally different about that dream. (Well, not totally, but different.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
I'd like to understand how you interpret Matthew 7.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
for those of you who wish to look at the world as merely a wonderful place and not see it as "fallen":
I'm sorry, I'm about as optimistic and starry eyed an idealist as has ever come down the pike.
Even with respect to today's world, Hobbes was right about the vast majority of life-- nasty, brutish, and short. I suspect we'd be much less Pollyanna-ish if we lived in third world countries where *real* poverty (not just people stuck in low-paying jobs), rampant disease, and scarce resources (I mean resources for things like house building material-- not gas for your SUV) are the order of the day. And the VAST majority of all life on Earth is that way.
We like to look at nature as this tranquil, peaceful, beautiful thing, but even the plant world is a fearsome battle for world domination competing against other species for resources and space. The environment of the planet must be survived as well-- storms and temperature extremes as well as the more extreme things like seismic events and other cataclysms. We speak of "Mother" Nature, and with reason, for she was the womb that produced us all... but like many mothers, she eats her young.
Even in places where prosperity reigns, horrific things can and do happen for no good reason. Just recently a 13 year old girl lost her legs at the ankles when an amusement park ride failed. Here locally a 3 year old boy drowned when his life vest got caught on a sinking boat and his father was unable to free him. And that's without even getting into the obvious active evil people commit every day.... much less the Chris Benoits, Andrea Yateses, and Susan Smiths of the world (in case you can't tell, I can think of little more evil than a parent who kills their own child)
People like to say (when arguing about abortion, especially) that "one mistake shouldn't ruin your life."
Bullshit.
One mistake can kill you-- and it doesn't have to be yours. I am one drunk driver or one run red light from losing my whole family... or maybe just me and leaving my kids stuck with their mother, which is a very bad thing. I'd elaborate, but the point of this is not to bag on my ex-wife, but to show, very graphically, that one mistake can end or ruin a huge set of lives very easily. All the hard work, the fragile, fledgling life I am building for my family, can be gone in the blink of an eye, through no fault of mine. That's not remotely good-- it's not even fair or just. But it absolutely is.
Of course there is an immense amount of beauty and wonder and grace in the world and in humanity, but to ignore the colossal and towering evil which surrounds and swallows all of that is to ignore the greater part of life. I can totally understand denying God because the world is so obviously full of evil that a good and omnipotent being would never permit these things to happen... but to deny God so you can claim the world is a fundamentally good place demands the question "what world are you living in?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, throughout the gospels, Jesus saved his sternest criticism for those who thought themselves more righteous than their neighbor. For those who paid great attention to the letter of the law, but ignored the spirit of it. Those who lacked compassion. Those who piled up burdens or who made a great show of their own righteousness. Jesus showed compassion to those who the Law called unclean and sinful.
I believe that Matthew 7 tells us that none of us are righteous enough to be making judgements on the righteousness of others. Jesus called hypocrite those who were concerned about the sins of others rather than facing their own.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Jim-Me, you don't sound so optimistic and starry eyed. You sound downright pessimistic and angry to me.
Some of what you see as evil, I would just consider to be the natural state of things. Poverty exists, people die, people suffer. It isn't fun, but I don't think that there is some overwhelming force of wrongness that pervades the world. We want to survive, to thrive, to enjoy every moment of life. Sometimes we don't get to do that, and it's upsetting to us, but I don't think it's Evil.
Life is absolutely hard, and dangerous, and often too short, but that doesn't mean it's not also awesome and wonderful and beautiful. A lot good happens among the bad. A lot of great things can fill a short life.
One of the things I find odd is that some of the people who I've met who consider the world a fallen, sinful place, focus an awful lot of their time and mental effort on the sin and evil, and in doing so, they miss out on or overlook so much that is good. This is particularly sad to me, when they're trying so hard to fight relatively inconsequential "sin", and messing up their own life and the lives of others in the process.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Jim-Me, you don't sound so optimistic and starry eyed. You sound downright pessimistic and angry to me.
The long-time unofficial motto of another forum I enjoy was "the cynical ones are the ones who care". One of the reasons I am so vicious in my description of evil is that it's all a shocking horror to me and it pains me greatly when I, personally can't do anything about it (yes, I realize that's a personality issue, and one I am working on).
We're actually not that far apart, I think. More on that in a minute.
quote:Some of what you see as evil, I would just consider to be the natural state of things. Poverty exists, people die, people suffer. It isn't fun
But this is precisely what Christians mean (or, perhaps, "should mean") when they speak of a fallen world-- that bad things happen, and often do to good people. And that that IS the natural state of things.
quote:Life is absolutely hard, and dangerous, and often too short, but that doesn't mean it's not also awesome and wonderful and beautiful. A lot good happens among the bad. A lot of great things can fill a short life.
Completely agreed, and why I still consider myself quite the optimist-- that despite the rampant badness in both the natural world and particularly man's actions, I can't help but think, on both the natural random level and the specific point of man's freewill, that it's worth it.
quote:One of the things I find odd is that some of the people who I've met who consider the world a fallen, sinful place, focus an awful lot of their time and mental effort on the sin and evil, and in doing so, they miss out on or overlook so much that is good. This is particularly sad to me, when they're trying so hard to fight relatively inconsequential "sin", and messing up their own life and the lives of others in the process.
I, too, agree, that it's a terrible tragedy, and why I think it's very important to worry about the plank in your own eye and much less about the speck in your brother's.
Of course, I haven't done an especially good job of that here as I'm preaching at everyone... but that gets back to being a fallen creature-- "I see the better way. I approve. I follow the worse."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB] I think that, throughout the gospels, Jesus saved his sternest criticism for those who thought themselves more righteous than their neighbor.
...but who were not actually righteous at all.
quote: For those who paid great attention to the letter of the law, but ignored the spirit of it. Those who lacked compassion. Those who piled up burdens or who made a great show of their own righteousness. Jesus showed compassion to those who the Law called unclean and sinful.
Not only the law, but He Himself called them sinful. (Called everyone sinful) He did not merely embrace them-- but gave them Himself so that their repentance could be effected.
Yes, he showed compassion-- but he never excused the sinner that continued in breaking God's commandments.
We are to do similarly, when we've gotten ourselves right with God. We are instructed to remove from our hearts our own sinful desires-- to better help our brothers and sisters who suffer the same afflictions.
In short, Jesus commands us not only to judge our brother, but to actively pursue their good.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think Jim is right to a certain extent. I think, though, that things are better than they were (taking a long view). Life is less brutish for more people than it was a century ago and considerably more than it was a millenia ago. And I think the world is supposed to be better than this. It is created to be better than it is. And it is our job is to keep making it better. To work together toward the kingdom. We just aren't there yet. I think that teaching that we are stuck in a fallen world or a lead age tends to make us feel helpless. We tend then to focus on the bad or on the second coming (when Christ will come and fix it for us) or on death rather than directing our energies to doing good.
And by doing good, I don't mean "correcting" other people's sexual morality. I mean working for social justice and peace. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked*, comforting the afflicted healing the sick.
*Unless they, you know, want to be naked...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boy, Scott, I'd have to be pretty sure I was perfect first before I started looking for those specks.
As I said - a wide gap between how you and I understand the gospels.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Very interesting. I agree that we are in the same ballpark
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Some of what you see as evil, I would just consider to be the natural state of things. Poverty exists, people die, people suffer. It isn't fun
But this is precisely what Christians mean (or, perhaps, "should mean") when they speak of a fallen world-- that bad things happen, and often do to good people. And that that IS the natural state of things.
Perhaps my difficulty with the idea of a fallen world is that it supposes that the world used to be perfect, and that if not for the sin of humans, all would be a wonderful utopia.
I think this idea causes all sorts of problems. It lays the blame on people, when first off, I don't think there is general blame to be laid, and secondly I certainly don't think people are responsible for a lion eating a zebra.
It also puts undue focus on the idea of sin in general. Certainly some actions are bad, and certainly people should strive to be better. In my experiences, many times it seems that focusing on "sinning" prevents people from seeing the forest for the trees. It's too narrow a view. It sometimes dehumanizes the target, turning them into a "sinner" instead of embracing them as a fellow human.
I know that the goal is "love the sinner, hate the sin", but I think that the focus on sin is counter productive in this regard. When the sin carries such a stigma, when the colossal blame of the entire fall of nature rests on the idea of a single misdeed, or the destruction of cities and nations is blamed on their sin, it becomes more and more difficult to see past the sin, or to forgive the person who has sinned.
If an entire city is destroyed because its people sin, how are they anything more than sinners? If no part of them is worthy of salvation because the presence of sin so taints their entire being, what lessons are we taught about how God really views sin? How easy for weak, fallible humans to fall into the mindset that the world might need another flood? Better, I say, to forget the notion of sin and judge an action by its results, and a person by her actions.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
I know that the goal is "love the sinner, hate the sin", but I think that the focus on sin is counter productive in this regard.
Again, I entirely agree. I think the single biggest damage that occurs is that it makes us all less honest about our own faults and less able to deal with others'... thus turning us all into hypocrites.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
So, not at all related to the current conversation, but on the women Taliban comment... A major and important difference between LDS and Taliban is their approach to women in the secular world. The push for every woman to be an educated woman is HUGE (atleast in my experience). Women are expected to vote and voice their opinions on subects. They are supposed to play an active role in society. Our stake president's (used to be our bishop) wife is a practicing doctor. As I work to get my phd, I have received nothing but support (and free babysitting). One woman went back to school and had tons of offers for tutoring and another was talking about finishing her college degree so she could get a job and not a single woman said anything discouraging (not even anything like, well if you could do it and still take care of your kids). In high school, it was expected that the LDS girls would be earning As and going to college. Also, as pointed out, book clubs exist in nearly every ward (my understanding on the "official" question was that they are not ever official activities in the sense that things said or done don't reflect the church or its teachings and you can't sue the church over anything that occurs there). Women are also expected to know the candidates and vote- and not just what their husband says.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I was pretty chagrined at agreeing with the statement after I reviewed the wiki on Taliban, especially regarding their restriction of women to education after age 8 and the women can't go to a doctor without male supervision, so a lot of diseases go untreated.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:As I said - a wide gap between how you and I understand the gospels.
What does the word "judge" entail, in your opinion? Why do you feel it's such a terrible thing to judge someone else's actions?
By "judging," I mean the act of examining the difference between God's commandments and the actions/words of a person or society. (That person should necessarily be oneself. Often)
I wonder if the difference between our POVs isn't in the word "judge," but the word "commandment."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Judge" for me means having the level of arrogance to believe that any of us have the corner on knowing how to be in communion with God. Deciding that our way is the only way and that everyone should do it our way. Or that our way is necessarily God's way.
Certainly, we have to evaluate how someone's impact us or other people (simply for our own safety), certainly we should try to set worthy examples and teach our children. Beyond that, however, none of us are nearly so perfect as to be deciding the righteousness or unrighteousness of anybody else.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Was Jesus the only person who could have righteously driven the money changers out of the temple grounds?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In the way and for the reasons He is said to have done it, yes.
Now - if the worshippers at the Temple had decided that it negatively impacted on their worship, I think they could reasonably argued that position. And, you will note, the money changers presence was sanctioned by the religious authority. More evidence that thr religious authority doesn't always get it right.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You're right-- we have a fundamental difference in how we view the gospel.
I'm guessing you don't have much use for proselyting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I really don't. Unless someone asks, I think it more often hinders someone's relationship with God to have someone insist on a specific model for that relationship.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think that part of trying to not judge people too harshly is that we don't know all the details of their lives. If someone is rude to me, I can assume that they're a rude person, or I can consider that maybe they're having a terrible day.
Likewise, I can assume that a man who publicly disapproves of alcohol and then sits on his lawn drinking out of a can is a hypocrite, or I can consider that perhaps it's non-alcoholic beer or even soda.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it more often hinders someone's relationship with God to have someone insist on a specific model for that relationship.
How do you reconcile our relationship to God through Christ in light of the quoted portion? Christian scriptures insist that we simply cannot get to God without a mediator-- without Christ.
Do you accept that view? Why EDIT or why not (if you self-identify as a Christian)?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't as simple as it seems. Christ is one on being with the Father. It is sort of like saying you can't get to Canada without going to Canada. "Christ" is a condition as much as a person. You can't be in relationship with the Creator without being in that condition.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
All other doctrinal differences aside (and your last post created dozens):
How do you recognize what is a contributing factor to a relationship with God/Christ, and what is not?
How do you recognize whether or not your determining factors are valid?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For myself or for other people?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not inclined to have this turn into a critique of your personal belief system.
"How does one recognize..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(Thank you)
For oneself or for other people?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Asking that question (twice now) almost gives me the answer, doesn't it?
For oneself, first-- how does one know that they are acting in a way that God desires them to act?
(My answer: Charismatic experience, in conjunction with scriptural and doctrinal understanding)
For others-- when can we know when to grab a tissue and help our brother wipe out the mote in their eye?
(My answer-- when they ask for it; when they don't ask for it, but obviously need assistance; when they don't obviously need assistance and don't ask for it, but the Spirit of God nudges to you that they do; when you think they need help, and you've got a reason to give it)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Interesting. I think I might answer in almost exactly the same way. Maybe. Does your answer to the second part vary in any way based on the relationship you have with the "brother"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Does your answer to the second part vary in any way based on the relationship you have with the "neighbor"?
Yes.
For example, if they've specifically asked that I not help them, then I just make myself eagerly available. Discretion and graciousness are a part of being a good Christian.
Also, if they've yelled at my kids for drawing on "their portion" of the communal sidewalk, I will be somewhat inclined to dab with the tissue a bit harder than may be warranted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For others - I suppose if they are in some sort of distress, are incompetent, have come to me for help etc. or their actions or inactions are hurtful.
My being concerned with other people's motes would lead me into smug satisfaction at best, hurting other people, using my own certainty to berate people that I dislike etc.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In short, Jesus commands us not only to judge our brother, but to actively pursue their good.
Would this also apply to someone who believes you are mortally sinning and wish to pursue your salvation through their faith? Would you mind if they judged you and tried to persuade or force you to follow their moral precepts? Thanks for any clarity. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that "actively pursuing their good" is quite possible without dictating or judging the specifics of their relationship with God or, within reason, their choices about their sexual morality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Would this also apply to someone who believes you are mortally sinning and wish to pursue your salvation through their faith?
YES.
quote:Would you mind if they judged you and tried to persuade or force you to follow their moral precepts?
I don't mind the persuasion. I don't really mind the judging either.
The forcing bit of your statement though...I don't think anyone would appreciate that. I hope you don't think I'm calling for people to be forced into a behavior, much less a religion.
quote:I think that "actively pursuing their good" is quite possible without dictating or judging the specifics of their relationship with God or, within reason, their choices about their sexual morality.
That "within reason" is the subjective part.
From the Articles of Faith:
quote:11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I'm fine with allowing people to worship God as they see fit, as they accord me the same respect; I'm in favor of protecting ALL religious solicitors, and in not allowing their persecution (or prosecution) under harassment laws.
It'll be a tough fight for me to accept kmboots' view on sexual morality (which she has shared elsewhere on this site) as something positive for society; much less acceptable from a scriptural standpoint. But I'm not going to pass any laws in that regard; nor am I going to make a judgment about whether or not she's righteous or wicked. That's God's affair.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm glad to know that forcing people to accept religion is not on your list of "okay" things. I'm not sure, though, where persuading stops and pushing begins. And for me, the underlying certainty that what is the right and good way to worship for me must be right and good for everyone else is where the sin lies. Thinking that other people need to be like me.
I am a joyful, Catholic; I do not by any means think everybody would be better off if they were Catholic.
So, I would not want you to accept my morality for you. It isn't for everybody. Frankly, it takes a lot of work and self discipline and a good deal of self examination. But I will try not to make too many judgements about whether your morality is good for you or good for society*. Having the same consideration would be nice.
*Except as it impacts the freedom of other people.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmbboots, do you have any thoughts about where the line should be between moral laws you live by but don't expect anyone else to agree with, and moral laws that ought to be applied, universally, to everyone, for the good of society?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:for me, the underlying certainty that what is the right and good way to worship for me must be right and good for everyone else is where the sin lies. Thinking that other people need to be like me.
I think here is where we need to differentiate. My personal view of God, the ways I personally communicate with Him-- I wouldn't feel comfortable stating that those methods are the only way to get to God.
But the *facts* about God, His character, His commandments, and His dealings with the general human population-- those things I *do* feel quite comfortable in being exclusionary about.
quote:I will try not to make too many judgements about whether your morality is good for you or good for society*. Having the same consideration would be nice.
Alas. Not from me, although I'll try my best to be polite about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You manage to make your disapproval about as polite as it can be, Scott. And I do appreciate that.
Puppy, probably. They generally deal with how we treat other people, though.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:kmbboots, do you have any thoughts about where the line should be between moral laws you live by but don't expect anyone else to agree with, and moral laws that ought to be applied, universally, to everyone, for the good of society?
I know the question wasn't directed at me, but demonstrable harm seems like a good starting point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, too, Juxtapose.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:kmbboots, do you have any thoughts about where the line should be between moral laws you live by but don't expect anyone else to agree with, and moral laws that ought to be applied, universally, to everyone, for the good of society?
I know the question wasn't directed at me, but demonstrable harm seems like a good starting point.
Something akin to that old adage, 'your right to swing your arm ends at my face.'?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Something like that. I do think that we should be concerned with doing some demonstrable good as well. But that "good" should (assuming competance) be "good" in the other person's opinion as well. We don't get to decide what is good for other people as long as their good isn't demonstrably harmful.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think the major difference of opinion comes from the belief about authority. kmboots states, "I am a joyful, Catholic; I do not by any means think everybody would be better off if they were Catholic." Now, I admit that sounds strange to me coming from a Catholic. Things might be changing, but I was always under the impression they believed in the authority of the Catholic Church in matters of Salvation.
As for Scott R, Puppy, myself, and other Mormons, the authority to judge is essential to the theology of Priesthood. In fact, the Book of Mormon is called "A Witness and a Warning" of Jesus Christ's Second Coming with the judgements to follow. The three-fold mission of the LDS Church, as stated by a recent Prophet, is to "Proclaim the Gospel," "Perfect the Saints," and "Redeem the Dead." On top of that, the lay membership is the ones responsible for leadership from top to bottom. There has also been several commandments to go and preach the Gospel to the World, bringing in the scattered of Israel. In other words, for Mormons to not judge is to be derelict of our duties. It is what we would call "magnifying our office."
On the other hand, to judge harshly, unrighteously, or simply without love and charity is to judge unrighteously. Such is considered sinful. The central focus of this isn't jugdement, but Service. You simply can't serve without making judgements about people. This is especially the case when part of service means acting as a leader for family, group, congregation, or wherever you are called. I admit that this is the first time I had thought of how important judging was in the LDS Church, but there is no getting around it as a major component of the religous life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly, I would be a very bad Mormon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We don't get to decide what is good for other people as long as their good isn't demonstrably harmful.
kmboots, your choice of words is very interesting. The implication is that those who "judge others" decide what is good for the people they're judging.
From my point of view, Mormons don't "decide" what is good or evil; that decision was made by God. My decision is to help or not help people come to Him by teaching them the commandments He has passed on to us.
I think we're still getting caught up on the word 'judge;' there are too many negative implications to the word that make it difficult to discuss. I wish I knew a better one. I can judge actions-- I can say, authoritatively, two teenagers who are have sexual relationships, that they are sinning.
I cannot tell whether or not they are wicked. I can say that God is displeased with their actions; I cannot say that God will send them to Hell for their actions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, I can't authoritatively say any of that. Nor would it be right for me to say that. If two teenagers were hurting each other or other people, that would be different. Or if the teenagers were not competent to decide for themselves - say thirteen rather than seventeen (though those line are fuzzy). I'm pretty certain about hurting other people being wrong. Beyond that, though, I don't get to decide for other people.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I cannot tell whether or not they are wicked. I can say that God is displeased with their actions; I cannot say that God will send them to Hell for their actions."
An interesting tack, there, Scott. What if the two teenagers in question lived 7,000 years ago in New Zealand? Are the still sinning? How about 7,000 years ago in Peru, or 120,000 years ago on the coast of present day Kenya?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What if the two teenagers in question lived 7,000 years ago in New Zealand? Are the still sinning? How about 7,000 years ago in Peru, or 120,000 years ago on the coast of present day Kenya?
If they're living 7000 years ago, or even 120000 years ago-- I wouldn't likely be talking to them. I don't believe in reincarnation, and frankly, a 7000 year old teenager would invalidate a LOT of our scientific and religious principles.
I mean, the question of whether pre-marital sex is wrong or not would be completely moot at that point.
To answer your question seriously, I don't know. It's possible that at some point in history, pre-marital sexual relations were not sinful.
But I don't live at that time.
quote:...I don't get to decide for other people.
Nor do I.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"To answer your question seriously, I don't know. It's possible that at some point in history, pre-marital sexual relations were not sinful.
But I don't live at that time."
Yesm but there are a number of groups of humans who are so far removed from the rest of the world that they have likely never met or seen a white person. There are places in Western China like this, if I understand correctly.
It goes without saying that plenty of these people have
A. Never heard of the Bible
B. do not practice anything like your version of sexual morality.
Are they sinning?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think we've had this exact conversation before.
No, they're not sinning, as far as I know. You can't sin without knowledge of what God wants.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
So, basically, when you show up with the Book of Mormon in BFE and start preaching it to people who've never heard it before, you're essentially telling them that, since you showed up and started telling them about God, they're now wrong to continue their old ways?
Gee, I think I'd run and hide if I saw you coming.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From my point of view, Mormons don't "decide" what is good or evil; that decision was made by God.
That's very interesting. If your god decided that it was good to eat babies with green Jello, would you still follow it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: So, basically, when you show up with the Book of Mormon in BFE and start preaching it to people who've never heard it before, you're essentially telling them that, since you showed up and started telling them about God, they're now wrong to continue their old ways?
Gee, I think I'd run and hide if I saw you coming.
Why not take into account the many GOOD things Scott would also be offering were he to tell people about God.
You might as well argue that were you to walk into a room with your fly open, and somebody points it out to you in a descreet way that you would rebuke them for not letting you blunder in ignorance.
For most people the highlite of finding God and the gospel is not obtaining guidelines for judging other's conduct. At least for me the closeness to God and the clarifying of many questions I had concerning him were infinitely more important.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"For most people the highlite of finding God and the gospel is not obtaining guidelines for judging other's conduct."
I see you've never met my friend, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "For most people the highlite of finding God and the gospel is not obtaining guidelines for judging other's conduct."
I see you've never met my friend, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell.
Strange you chose him as a friend. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Yeah, Jerry and me were best friends. I used to write the dude's sermons for Sunday morning service. He officiated at my wedding. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that humanity's track record of discernment regarding other people's actions and belief being displeasing to God that, where there is no demonstarble harm, am content to limit my judgement to my own actions and beliefs. Things that do cause demonstarble harm tend to happen when we do that. And monitoring my own behavior is sufficient to keep me occupied.
Though I understand the temptation to mess with the mote in somebody else's eye. It is way more fun, considerably easier and one gets the bonus of feeling smug and superior. That is far to close to temptation for me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Much like the bad Muslims hide in amongst the non-violent ones, the bad Catholics hide in amongst the kmbbootses.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, to be fair, I can see how, in some cases, the sexual morality rules of Christianity were useful, since, if the white man was going to show up with his many STDs anyway, it was good to get everybody being monogamous.
In some cases. Maybe.
Not in all cases.
That's all you'll get from me.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Much like the bad Muslims hide in amongst the non-violent ones, the bad Catholics hide in amongst the kmbbootses.
Are you trying to imply that Catholics who disagree with kmbboots are bad Catholics? In that case, I'm glad I don't abide by your sense of good and bad.
Not that I think her position is "bad" by any means. In fact, she speaks for me on most matters of faith. I simply disagree on this point. I'll elaborate tomorrow, I'm too sleepy to write out a long post.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Spanish Inquisition. I'm guessing there are a few Catholics who think it should be brought back. That's what I'm talking about. She made my point for me pretty well--when belief leads you to coercion of others, belief has gone too far, and needs a wake-up call.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Catholics do have some history to overcome. In 2000 years, most organizations will have some history to overcome.
I'm reasonably confident that you will find that the vast majority of American Catholics are not in favour of a return of the Inquisition. And. really, we aren't nearly so enthusiastic about coercion as we were in the freakin' Middle Ages.
Look, for example at the voting record of Catholics in the Senate.
[ July 04, 2007, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Judgement =! Coercion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not sure if you are addressing me, but...
True. Judgement isn't coercion. I do think, though that one can and has lead to the other. When one becomes so sure that he or she has the corner on the "right way" to live, it sometimes seems "reasonable" to want everyone to follow that way.
It is something to guard against. Particularly when one has power. The intention can be well-meant; the results often aren't so good.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Though I understand the temptation to mess with the mote in somebody else's eye. It is way more fun considerably easier and one gets the bonus of feeling smug and superior.
Alas, this is not true. Or at least it isn't true for anyone who's actually adhering to the guidelines laid out in Matthew 7.
quote:When one becomes so sure that he or she has the corner on the "right way" to live, it sometimes seems "reasonable" to want everyone to follow that way.
Certainly. Even without the scare quotes.
If I've got the cure to polio, it's fairly evil of me to keep it to myself.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I've got the cure to polio, it's fairly evil of me to keep it to myself.
But would it be moral to force that cure on someone who refused it?
I'm not asking because I have an answer...I don't. I'm just curious how you (or anyone) stands on the clash between the good of a cure and the right of a person to choose or refuse that cure.
For me, offering someone a cure is fine. Teaching and informing them about it is fine. But I have a real problem of conscience when we talk about forcing a cure on someone.
Not saying you would, Scott, just to be clear.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I haven't noticed Scott forcing, intending to force, or using the word force at all. The only instance of the use of the word has come from those who seem to be confusing holding a belief that something is a sin with forcing everyone to conform to that belief.
That's not a minor step - that's a major step, and it hasn't been proposed as an action. It isn't clear why it's being argued against.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I haven't noticed Scott forcing, intending to force, or using the word force at all. The only instance of the use of the word has come from those who seem to be confusing holding a belief that something is a sin with forcing everyone to conform to that belief.
That's not a minor step - that's a major step, and it hasn't been proposed as an action. It isn't clear why it's being argued against.
First, I wasn't trying to imply Scott, or anyone else here, would use force to impose themselves on others.
The reason I jump there, however, is because we live in a society where a lot of people in and out of the government, for example, want to ban a group of people from being able to marry eachother because doing so would be a sin.
That's why I don't think other sins being banned by force is that far a distance to jump. I know no one here has suggested it as an action, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Conflating the two doesn't engender discussion - it muddies. It also definitely looks like you're saying that one equals the other. Treating them as if they were the same thing is both quite unfair to those who hold only one and also obfuscates any discussion. It's another discussion entirely.
It isn't true. They are not the same thing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Conflating the two doesn't engender discussion - it muddies. It also definitely looks like you're saying that one equals the other. Treating them as if they were the same thing is both quite unfair to those who hold only one and also obfuscates any discussion. It's another discussion entirely.
It isn't true. They are not the same thing.
I'm more than happy to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong.
Would you care to explain how they aren't the same thing?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Wow, a Javert on Javert confrontation. I'm in awe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's a question:
If you believe you have the cure for an infectious disease, would it be wrong to require everyone in the country to submit to the cure? What if even one or two people who didn't submit could conceivably reinfect a future generation?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What if even one or two people who didn't submit could conceivably reinfect a future generation?
There's the issue. If they can cause harm to others by not taking the cure, then I would feel better about the argument to force a cure on them.
Causing harm, of course, is much easier to see in terms of a disease.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Javert, are you honestly confused about the difference between believing something a sin and FORCING everyone else to follow that? It's the difference between being a vegetarian for moral reasons and criminalizing eating meat. The difference between getting your teeth cleaned at the dentist and locking up everyone who doesn't.
It's a gigantic leap. I can hardly believe you don't see that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Javert, are you honestly confused about the difference between believing something a sin and FORCING everyone else to follow that? It's the difference between being a vegetarian for moral reasons and criminalizing eating meat. The difference between getting your teeth cleaned at the dentist and locking up everyone who doesn't.
It's a gigantic leap. I can hardly believe you don't see that.
Not what I thought you meant.
Yes, OF COURSE there's a leap between believing something is a sin and forcing others to follow that.
My point is only that I don't think it's as big a leap as you think. (Thus my SSM example.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's a question:
If you believe you have the cure for an infectious disease, would it be wrong to require everyone in the country to submit to the cure? What if even one or two people who didn't submit could conceivably reinfect a future generation?
For me, it would depend on the consequences of the disease. Are we talking chickenpox, or smallpox?
If it's smallpox, then I don't think it's wrong to force everyone to get vaccinated. We keep people from doing things that they want to do, if those things are harmful to the good of those around them. Seems like the precedent's there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Disease is a demonstrable harm. Sex between consenting adults is not.
And believing something is a sin is a big leap to forcing other people to conform to that belief. It is, however, a leap that humanity tends to make. And has made. Countless times. Mttthew 7 is a warning to be taken seriously. For myself, I am better off avoiding judging entirely. Trying to do it "righteously" gives me too much leeway.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Disease is a demonstrable harm. Sex between consenting adults is not.
Eh. We disagree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Demonstrate the harm?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Disease is a demonstrable harm. Sex between consenting adults is not.
Sex completely unchecked by any cultural standards can have a lot of negative consequences. Sex isn't an unmitigated good. It potentially has a lot of awesome consequences, and a lot of painful or harmful ones. How we pursue sex, and the choices we make surrounding it, determine to a great extent what set of consequences we reap.
One of the best things we can do for our children as they become sexually mature is to channel them into sexual behavior that will have all of the best benefits and none of the downsides. One of the worries that Mormons like me have is that the mainstream culture glorifies a lot of behaviors that do the opposite, and it can be politically impossible to try and rein those excesses in without being labeled judgmental.
For the record, by the way, not all Mormons have doctrinal problems with teenagers living 7,000 years ago.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: One of the best things we can do for our children as they become sexually mature is to channel them into sexual behavior that will have all of the best benefits and none of the downsides.
Hear, hear!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree. I think that "none of the downsides" is optimistic, though, even for sex within marriage. There can be plenty of downsides to that, too.
I am a,, for responsible behavior. I just don't agree (as we have previously noted) that marriage is the only way to accomplish that.
I think that mainstream culture has a lot wrong with it. I think some of that is a reaction to being "reined in". Teaching responsibility rather than enforcing rules strikes me as a better way to address the excesses.
And what you consider excessive is not universally acknowledged.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The problem with "reining in" those desires by telling people "God said it's wrong, check the Bible" is that you end up with a bunch of people wanting to convert traditional groups who aren't hurting themselves or anybody else away from their old ways, for no good reason.
Making people very aware of the dangers of STDs and pregnancy, as well as the emotional costs of casual sex, has no more negative consequence than "God said it, so do it, punk"(IMHO), and doesn't cause people to try to convert rural tribes to Bible-based sexual beliefs.
Again, IMHO.
Seriously though, you don't tell your kids that getting vaccinations is commanded by God, right? You do it because you hope to avoid epidemics, or to keep your child from catching a disease.
The same thing applies to casual sex, with pregnancy and emotional trauma as added issues.
I don't see the point of discarding parts of the New Testament like "women should keep their heads covered" but keeping the sexual mores. You're picking and choosing. If there's picking and choosing going on, then I think my own judgment is good enough to let me do most of my own, for myself. Why is your picking and choosing better than mine? Give me an answer that is directly based in demonstrable harm.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Seriously though, you don't tell your kids that getting vaccinations is commanded by God, right? You do it because you hope to avoid epidemics, or to keep your child from catching a disease.
I actually WILL say something along the lines of, "Getting vaccinations is important as it safeguards you against types of sickness. God also wants us to do all that is reasonably in our power to protect ourselves and others."
quote: I don't see the point of discarding parts of the New Testament like "women should keep their heads covered" but keeping the sexual mores. You're picking and choosing. If there's picking and choosing going on, then I think my own judgment is good enough to let me do most of my own, for myself. Why is your picking and choosing better than mine? Give me an answer that is directly based in demonstrable harm.
Oh look, another question about judgement. This IMO has nothing to do with cherry picking your Bible. There may not be a universal rule of modesty as far as God is concerned, but he does expect us to look at the culture and times we live in and make decisions that are not categorically righteous, but very situationally correct.
It is up to the individual to read the Bible with discernment and learn God's mind concerning matters of modesty today and how they compare with other times.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"t is up to the individual to read the Bible with discernment and learn God's mind concerning matters of modesty today and how they compare with other times."
Missionaries all over the world have basically forced Western-style clothing on traditional tribes, for no good reason that I can see. Are you telling me that LDS missionaries have never or would never have done this?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Missionaries all over the world have basically forced Western-style clothing on traditional tribes, for no good reason that I can see. Are you telling me that LDS missionaries have never or would never have done this?
I can hardly speak for every missionary, I personally was not told, "Get them in suits and dresses."
Member in Taiwan were encouraged to wear the best clothes they had to church. If somebody could only afford a t-shirt and shorts, that's what they came in. It was common for members to pool money however and purchase a new set of clothes for converts if they were from modest means.
More importantly however if they had chosen to wear traditional chinese clothing to church, no eye brows would have been raised. Sister missionaries as a matter of fact often purchased Chinese Qi Paos and wore them while proselyting or attending church.
Tongan Mormons can often be seen wearing tupenu, whereas a Malaysian Mormon could easily wear a sarong to church.
Certainly a convert from a third world country might opt to wear a suit and tie to church after converting as that might be part of them, "Becoming a new person." I certainly see no problem with people dressing up if the climate allows it.
Mormons however do try to stress the idea that all members of the church are a family, and steps taken to help folks recognize that we celebrate that unity of faith and togetherness are encouraged. The center of the church however is recognized as Salt Lake City Utah. Therefore when people visit from other countries to attend say general conference, they are encouraged to dress in the clothing that we in the US consider smart, professional and modest.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I actually WILL say something along the lines of, "Getting vaccinations is important as it safeguards you against types of sickness. God also wants us to do all that is reasonably in our power to protect ourselves and others."
Why add the last part about God? Why would you need God to tell you to do all that is reasonably within your power to protect yourself and others? I would like to think people would come to that conclusion on their own without the need for some all powerful being to tell them to do so.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think we've had this exact conversation before.
No, they're not sinning, as far as I know. You can't sin without knowledge of what God wants.
Another one of my sticking points about Christianity. If someone has had no information about God, they cannot reject God's teaching, so they cannot sin.
By introducing the knowledge to someone - someone who they KNOW, without a doubt, is flawed and will be unable to live a perfect life - missionaries are willfully bringing sin and the threat of damnation into people's lives.
These people were living a life free of care, able to do as they pleased without the consequences of sin (although, certainly most of them lived good, moral lives regardless) and suddenly they are given a box of vipers - with the best intentions I'm sure. Somewhere in the box is the anti-venom, but why give them the vipers in the first place?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I actually WILL say something along the lines of, "Getting vaccinations is important as it safeguards you against types of sickness. God also wants us to do all that is reasonably in our power to protect ourselves and others."
Why add the last part about God? Why would you need God to tell you to do all that is reasonably within your power to protect yourself and others? I would like to think people would come to that conclusion on their own without the need for some all powerful being to tell them to do so.
Because that is how I think things ACTUALLY are? People think its wrong to justify a course of action purely on, "Because God says so," so how is it any more wrong for me a believer in God to act like he has nothing to do with anything?
Sure there are plenty of things that human beings come up with on their own, (I do believe that human beings are given a very basic moral framework by God) but there are plenty of bad things that human beings try to pass as acceptable.
The fact we cannot agree on something as fundamental as judgment demonstrates to me that even less can be agreed on when it comes to actually deciding what is right and wrong.
I don't have qualms with allowing God to assist me with his infinite wisdom.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow: I know this was not directed at me, apologies for the intrusion
quote: By introducing the knowledge to someone - someone who they KNOW, without a doubt, is flawed and will be unable to live a perfect life - missionaries are willfully bringing sin and the threat of damnation into people's lives.
These people were living a life free of care, able to do as they pleased without the consequences of sin (although, certainly most of them lived good, moral lives regardless) and suddenly they are given a box of vipers - with the best intentions I'm sure. Somewhere in the box is the anti-venom, but why give them the vipers in the first place?
Just because somebody does not know God does not mean they can do no wrong. It simply means the expectations they are given to live up to are lower. A person who knows no God, as has been argued MANY times on this forum, can make many reasonable and correct observations about morality. If people are all dishonest, society does not work. Work is required for things to run. Stealing what is not mine can cause harm to others. They can still be judged by God based on what they BELIEVED, even if those beliefs do not coincide completely with God's de facto system of morality.
If I TRULY believe that children need to learn the value of hard work, and I fail to teach them that because I am idle and lazy as a father God can certainly condemn me for that.
The gospel is not an obstacle course we are required to negotiate and then God judges us based on which stage we slipped up on. It's a set of tools that are meant to empower us to be able to negotiate life, which IS in fact an obstacle course.
Is it much harder to be an adult then a child? Sure is! Do many adults wish they could be children again? Sure are! I personally enjoy the empowerment that comes with being an adult, and I think life is qualitatively better as an adult compared to when I was a child.
The gospel to me makes people adults. edit: Figuretively.
[ July 05, 2007, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think many adults who aren't Christian and have never heard the gospel might disagree.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think many adults who aren't Christian and have never heard the gospel might disagree.
I am not sure what you are saying. It seems like you skipped the whole post and then simply commented on the very last thing I said.
edit: Also if they have never heard of Christianity how can their opinions of the effects of Christianity even be valid?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It seems to me like he commented on the part of your post he was most interested in.
How do you normally converse?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Another one of my sticking points about Christianity. If someone has had no information about God, they cannot reject God's teaching, so they cannot sin.
This statement is only valid for some branches of Christianity and some definitions of sin. It is not even remotely close to what I believe.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The gospel to me makes people adults.
Sorry to burden you with having to converse with us children then.
I personally fail to see how I am not an adult in character or behavior, but children often do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It seems to me like he commented on the part of your post he was most interested in.
How do you normally converse?
My last comment only makes sense to even me in light of everything else I said in the post. Typically if I was going to ignore a chunk of post and comment on a part I would use the "quotation" function.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The gospel to me makes people adults.
Sorry to burden you with having to converse with us children then.
I personally fail to see how I am not an adult in character or behavior, but children often do.
For goodness sakes. That is not what I was saying at all. I said the gospel has the same intended effect on people that adulthood has on children.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Semantics. You can't control which parts of your posts people are interested in talking about. Since he's not the only one who found that sentence strange, maybe it wasn't what you intended to say. Or maybe it was.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Perhaps I misread you then. It seemed to me that you were claiming that people who don't believe what you do are children and not to be held responsible to the same set of standards that adults like yourself are.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Perhaps I misread you then. It seemed to me that you were claiming that people who don't believe what you do are children and not to be held responsible to the same set of standards that adults like yourself are.
People who do not know about the gospel are not held to the same standards that those who do know about it are.
Just as children are not held to the same standards as adults.
edit: In retrospect I can see that I was not very clear on this point, I made a quick edit. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, you weren't talking about the behavior or maturity of the people involved?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If I remember correctly from my Christian education, the thought process goes something like this:
All people can naturally understand morality. It makes sense to any rational adult that doing harm to others or ones self should be avoided. All the rules provided in the Bible are obvious ones, except the particularities of faith. Nobody could be expected to show reverence to a God he does not know exists, or fast on a particular day he is not aware is considered holy.
To expect someone to abide by rules which they do not know, and at the same time which they could never come to on their own would be nonsensical or foolish. To punish someone for the same would be unjust or wicked. Since God is not nonsensical, foolish, unjust or wicked, it follows that people who do not know the Gospel are only held to standards of morality, and are not required to follow the rules and regulations expected of those who know better.
This all seems to make perfect sense. It WOULD be cruel to punish someone for a rule that they have no way of knowing and no expectation of ever even guessing at.
This starts to seem odd though, when people who do know the rules are told to share these rules with others. True, the Christians don't look at it that way, but to an outsider, I imagine it can look exactly like that. Suddenly they are saddled, against their will, with the responsibility to believe things they have never considered, follow a new list of rules and regulations - many of which may make no sense whatsoever to them - and if they do not, they will suffer for their failure, or at worst, be damned to eternal hell.
If non-Christians are spiritually Children, this would be similar to giving them a mountain of radioactive material. There exists within it the possibility to do great good, but the immediate danger to themselves and others is fantastic.
Worse, they could indeed become adults, and now armed with this powerful matter, could turn it into a weapon. Just think, had I never had so much Christian education, I would not now be making this argument.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, you weren't talking about the behavior or maturity of the people involved?
....I don't think so.
Merely pointing out that the gospel to me is a good thing universaly speaking, just like adulthood. Doesn't mean adulthood occurs without people getting mad at it.
edit: Mighty Cow:
quote:This starts to seem odd though, when people who do know the rules are told to share these rules with others. True, the Christians don't look at it that way, but to an outsider, I imagine it can look exactly like that. Suddenly they are saddled, against their will, with the responsibility to believe things they have never considered, follow a new list of rules and regulations - many of which may make no sense whatsoever to them - and if they do not, they will suffer for their failure, or at worst, be damned to eternal hell.
It takes alot more then me just telling them, "God expects you to rest on the Sunday," for them to then be bound to sabbath observance. They have to physically observe the Sabbath, see its effects, and know from God its a commandment before its something worth condemning.
They could be SLIGHTLY faulted for refusing to listen if they dismiss the gospel without good reason. I can think of MANY good reasons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lots of demonstrably good things in the Gospels, too. Going beyond just refraining from harming each other.
And I think there is too much attention paid to rewards and punishments in the hereafter. The Gospel is, for me, about how I should live now and the blessings that are mine now.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It seems to me that the unknowable stuff, such as the state of the hereafter, is where the Bible really gets going. When it gets right down to it, how much of what's in the Bible is really exclusive? The Jesus stuff, the legal stuff, and the afterlife stuff seems most obvious.
Most of it, anyone should be able to appreciate or figure out on their own. Do good things and don't hurt people: check. Enjoy life: check. Take care of people around you: check. The blessings and how you can should live now seem mostly obvious.
In fact, it seems to me that nobody should need to be taught about God, as it should be self evident. Everybody knows that trees grow from the ground, you need to breathe to live, things fall downward, and so on. These things are clear from observation and living life.
What blessings are there, that anyone cannot appreciate? Certainly children and mentally disabled people can feel God's love, and can participate in a community, and can be cared for and care for others, even if they have no real understanding of the Bible.
It seems a cruel burden to put on anyone, to expose them to damnation when they already have access to nearly all the good things life has to offer. Certainly God doesn't require human intervention to manifest in someone's life.
If someone follows the belief that learning about God and the requirements of the church makes them responsible to follow those teachings, it seems to me horribly irresponsible to do so. Teaching a person about faith and the wages of sin may do them some finite amount of good, but it exposes them to infinite sorrow and suffering! That's a sucker bet if I ever heard one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why should it be exclusive? Certainly Jesus was saying a lot of things that had been said before. Things we often need to hear, nonetheless. Even the love your enemies wasn't entirely new. Radical then as now, but not unheard of.
And I think it is self-evident as well. My bottom-line theology hasn't fundamentally altered since I was a child.
I think that its lack of exclusivity, its commonality with the great teachings of many traditions, makes me more inclined to believe its truth.
And I really wish you weren't so worried about hell. For some of us "hell" is a condition we choose ourselves rather than punishment doled out to us.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Is it much harder to be an adult then a child? Sure is! Do many adults wish they could be children again? Sure are! I personally enjoy the empowerment that comes with being an adult, and I think life is qualitatively better as an adult compared to when I was a child.
(tangent)
I think it is considerably easier to be an adult than a kid.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I agree. The simple addition of perspective makes my life a lot easier.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't have qualms with allowing God to assist me with his infinite wisdom. [/QB]
You have absolutely no proof that your god has any wisdom at all, much less 'infinite' wisdom, whatever that means. (How you get an infinite amount of something that can't be quantised is beyond me.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've been reading the gospels a lot lately. I hadn't realized how much the contradict each other in terms of sequences of fairly important events. I can definitely see where a Muslim or a Jew could think Christians need a lot of zeal just to stand by their own scriptures. I kind of wish I had my Jehovah's witness friends to tease about it. Well, not really. There were a lot of holes I failed to poke in them that I could have at the time, but I didn't ever get adversarial with them because then I would have been left to my own wits.
I haven't sorted out the spiritual child/adult thing. It's a paradox. I become a child of God by acknowledging him as my father. In exercising this truth I have become, in many respects, free. We must be born again.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I think it is considerably easier to be an adult than a kid.
I will third that. I understand in theory how being a kid is easier, but that theory does not hold true to my own experiences.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess it depends on whether one's mental and emotional ages are in sync with one's physical and social opportunities.
But maybe the whole concept of spiritual maturation is being taken a bit too literally. Maybe we're like embryonic marsupials, whose growth is not inevitable. Well, certainly mental and emotional growth are like that.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It just seemed sort of funny to have a church school in Jerusalem (dedicated to Jewish studies) but support Hamas. Though I suppose incompetance has authored stranger contradictions then that.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
katharina!
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)