I completely understand why the only men have the priesthood thing appears the way it does to those looking from the outside. It seems like a repetition of the worst patterns of western civ. And if I was looking from the outside, I'm sure I would have the same opinion.
But I have seen how things function. And I've witnessed how priesthood leaders are guided by the spirit, and I know it's how the Church is supposed to operate. I recognize that means nothing in an academic discussion. But if it was simply a matter of academics, I wouldn't be doing what I'm trying to do.
Also: I don't think that I could accept the whole way in which the church as an institution was set up without all the other things that are part of it -- the additional scripture, the doctrine of eternal families and eternal progression, the workings of the Holy Ghost, the covenants, and most importantly, the temple. In other words, as a hierarchical principle I distrust it in the hands of others. Hypocritical? You bet. But if I wasn't a hypocrite, I wouldn't be the Mormon I am. I'd probably be a nice liberal but not radical, academic-oriented, somewhat postmodern, agnostic.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, now, Scott, that is what some would say the whole problem with post-modernism is -- that it's just another form of modernism.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is no gradation of authority, as pooka points out, no Amway-step-ladder to climb."
Scott, is it not the case that the Prophet -- and the Apostles -- are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called? People who have, in fact, climbed a certain Amway stepladder? I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens. (Of course, I'm no expert in LDS history; there might well be such a case.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, can you really be an agnostic Mormon? Isn't one of the very tenets of Mormonism the claim that anyone who sincerely asks God to reveal Himself will get an answer? By this logic, why would you be a Mormon if you HAVEN'T felt the presence of God -- and if you HAVE felt the presence of God, why would you be an agnostic?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the key point is that God set the system up. You can reject that if you want, but to a believing Mormon that is all that matters.
Why don't women hold the Priesthood? Because its not part of the doctrines and practices of the LDS Church for them to have it. All other reasons are secondary arguments.
Well, what is the theological reasoning of why women can't have the priesthood? In theory, there is really no reason women couldn't have the priesthood, besides scripture precedence of them not having it and some of the sayings of the Apostle Paul (who said that women shouldn't preside in meetings, that is even harsher than current Mormon practices). There is nowhere in any Mormon scripture that says "women can't hold the priesthood" in big bold letters.
However, at this point Scriptural precedence and some of Paul's sayings are all that needs to be said on the subject of why women don't hold the Priesthood. Why? Because God has not given a revelation to the current prophet, or any prophet in the Scriptures, to the effect that women can hold the priesthood. It doesn't matter how much political pressure or good reasoning goes into arguing why women can /should have the priesthood. Until God through the Prophet says otherwise, the possibility of giving it to women is moot. I would never say never, but I would hardly say someday.
The real question isn't why can't women hold the priesthood in the LDS Church? It is will there ever be a day when an LDS prophet claim to receive revelations granting the priesthood to women? That has to happen no matter how good the arguments are for or against granting women the Priesthood.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion. I am going to add my two cents on an issue that I have thought about quite a lot over the years, that of where women stand in the Mormon church. In doing so I am trying to explain the relevant LDS doctrines; I hope I do all right.
Sheri Dew gave a brilliant talk a couple of years ago--I think it was General Conference, October 2001--on motherhood. She said,
quote: Our influence comes from a divine endowment that has been in place from the beginning. In the premortal world, when our Father described our role, I wonder if we didn’t stand in wide-eyed wonder that He would bless us with a sacred trust so central to His plan and that He would endow us with gifts so vital to the loving and leading of His children. I wonder if we shouted for joy at least in part because of the ennobling stature He gave us in His kingdom. The world won’t tell you that, but the Spirit will.
I think a lot of the problems I have had in the past with power structures, and the way I perceive them, are based on my very limited earth-only view. But the better I understand my own doctrine, the better I feel about it. In Mormon theology, we lived before we were born as spirits, and we will live again after we die. We have two key passages to make in our eternal existence: the transition from the spirit world to this earthly one, and then the transition to the next life, where we will be judged based on our performance here.
It is the responsibility of mothers to provide spirits with bodies, thus facilitating the first tradition. It is the responsibility of priesthood-holding fathers to help us, once here on earth, to return worthily to the next life, through the necessary priesthood ordinances such as baptism.
This is why we are taught that "women are mothers and men hold the priesthood." Motherhood isn't some crust we were thrown when we whined about not having something noble to do. It's exactly equal with priesthood: it makes possible the passage from one life to the next, just as the organization of the priesthood does.
That's all I have to say, except that understanding this (based on a wonderful unpublished manuscript on the role of LDS women by BYU political science professor Valerie Hudson)was a huge epiphany for me, and I hope I explained it clearly.
--Emily
--P.S.--Anne Kate, I had my baby three months ago--Norah Linnette, after my mom and my husband's grandmother--and she's gorgeous, plus she slept through the night at six weeks, so I couldn't ask for anything more. Posts: 189 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called? People who have, in fact, climbed a certain Amway stepladder?
That is partly a good point. It is far more likely a person will be called who has gained some experience in leadership positions. However, the "ladders" that have been climbed vary from Apostle to Apostle. Some have had more callings than others. In fact, some were called when they actually went "down a ladder" from previous positions. They are no different than any member who is active in church leadership.
quote:I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens. (Of course, I'm no expert in LDS history; there might well be such a case.)
Obviously you are not an expert. Prophets and Apostles come from all kinds of backgrounds. Some were teachers, farmers, bankers, doctors, lawyers, and any number of backgrounds. Religiously some have been Bishops, Stake Presidents, and even Sunday School Teachers at the time they were called. Concievably a previously Catholic hot dog vendor operator in Queens could be called to such a high position. I will agree its unlikely, but hardly impossible.
posted
Here's what the church itself has to say on the topic of the priesthood:
quote: The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority. All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
Leading congregations of the Church Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism Blessing those who are sick God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.
and on women and the priesthood:
quote: Women are not ordained to the priesthood in the Church; however, whether on a churchwide or local level, there are many opportunities for women to lead and serve in the Church. The Church has several organizations that are directed by women. Those leaders regularly sit in council with priesthood leaders. The Relief Society is a worldwide women’s organization more than four million strong. The president of the Relief Society is Bonnie D. Parkin, with Kathleen H. Hughes and Anne C. Pingree serving as her counselors.
The Young Women organization serves young women 12 to 18 years of age. The Young Women general president is Susan W. Tanner, and her counselors are Julie P. Beck and Elaine S. Dalton.
The Primary organization exists to teach children 18 months to age 12. Coleen K. Menlove is the president of the Primary, and Sydney S. Reynolds and Gayle M. Clegg are her counselors.
Each of these organizations also operates on a local level, where women are responsible for the supervision of teachers and committee members, as well as meeting the needs of Church members who fall under their stewardship.
Women also serve as teachers, missionaries, chapel librarians, music directors, temple workers, and activities committee chairpersons, among other positions. Opportunities for service are almost endless, and, working together, the women and men of the Church can truly answer the call of the Savior, who asked His disciples to feed His sheep (John 21:16–17).
and on prophets:
quote: A prophet is a man called by God to be His special witness on the earth. A prophet speaks for God, with divine power and authority. He: Communicates God’s will to all people. Is a special witness for Jesus Christ, testifying of His divinity. Teaches the gospel and interprets the word of God. Calls the unrighteous to repentance. Receives revelations and directions from the Lord. May see into the future in order to warn the world of coming events. You can read the words of God’s ancient prophets in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. God has not left us alone in our day. There is a living prophet on the earth today who communicates God’s will and stands as His special witness.
quote: The Lord calls special witnesses, or prophets, to tell the world about Him. You can find the testimonies of prophets in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and in the Book of Mormon.
In modern times, Joseph Smith was called as a prophet of God. Like Moses and other biblical prophets, Joseph Smith saw God and His Son, Jesus Christ, and was called to testify of Them and to preach the gospel.
There are also special witnesses of Jesus Christ on the earth today, testifying of Him and of His gospel.
Through the testimonies of these special witnesses, you can better understand the divinity of Jesus Christ and His gospel. You can receive direction about how Heavenly Father wants you to live, how to be happy, and how to return to live with Him.
posted
Scott, to answer your point: I don't care about whether the church might or might not make women out to be inferior with relation to divinity or deserving things, the issue is one of sheer control. Whether or not it is a burden, right privilege, whatever you want to call it, men hold ultimate control over women. Yes, this could only be fixed by a woman president, but since that position is elected anyway it doesn't seem so divinely inspired. Also, I don't see how my definition of salvation is incorrect, even to the mormon usage. You seem to narrowing terms down to ridiculously small aspects. Salvation is more to even the LDS than you attributed it. What is my authority? My experience is. I could sit here and make up titles and phony positions of "academic" or "theological" authority I might have had, but that's not the point. What I liked about hatrack when I first came here was that noone gave a hoot n holler about your credentials. You are judged by what you say.
Pooka, your points about the men needing women are moot, since its the same way: women need men. Since that attribute is equaled out we move onto the next closest thing: power relationships inside marriage. There clearly the male holds ultimate authority, given that divorce is extremely difficult and socially discouraged in the LDS community.
Also, I am not saying that all religious women are brainwashed, merely the ones who believe that it is theologically established that males should hold the final say in the world. There is not one shred of evidence in all of any theology to prove this proposition true.
quote: . . . we move onto the next closest thing: power relationships inside marriage. There clearly the male holds ultimate authority, given that divorce is extremely difficult and socially discouraged in the LDS community.
How does that follow?
quote: Also, I am not saying that all religious women are brainwashed, merely the ones who believe that it is theologically established that males should hold the final say in the world.
You keep taking people's words and twisting them to say that, but it's not what anyone here seems to me to be saying at all. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian, the prophet (or senior apostle) is not elected. The only way to become the prophet is for every apostle senior to you to be taken to the Lord (or die, as is commonly said.) Men are selected to become apostles by the existing apostles. While a different system could be (as we believe it) revealed, this is the one that seems to preclude ambition. Sure there could be a conspiracy etc. etc. but I think it's a good system. The women's organization is parallel to the priesthood. Sorry for my pugnacity.
There was a trend of BYU presidents being called into the apostleship. I don't know if they will keep that up or not.
Tom- all the apostles have a long track record of church service, but they are a tiny proportion of the potential "candidates".
Bishops are under Stake Presidents. But I think it would be possible to become one and not the other.
And no, I'm not "surprised" (as one of my fellow Saints put it) that patriarchalism is seen by many as the same as abuse. I grew up with that problem. But I don't see the way of the world giving us better solutions. I tried that briefly as well, and didn't find it any more comfortable. But maybe it's just me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Selected has the word elected in it. Similar process. Until there is proof of god, doesn't it seem pretty political to get in among that elite group?
"Sure there could be a conspiracy etc. etc. but I think it's a good system. "
Again you are relying on the system not to be abused. Perhaps that hope is good enough for earth-based institutions, but institutions guiding the eternal fate of souls shouldn't be so prone to possible error should they?
No, patriarchy is never better than the possible equality offered by other parts of worldly views. This is because patriarchy will continue to bolster things, which even though you might claim should be unrelated, will be by their defenders: lower wages for women, more abuse for women, etc. One can try to mitigate these away and argue alternative causalities, but the fact is that many of these problems would not be present if theology didn't attempt to theologically-rationalize chauvenism(patriarchy).
And for those who continue to repeat that "it's just the way it is because doctrine says thus," that doesn't really work in the modern world. The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
As to theological reasoning of motherhood equaling priesthood that is not a logical argument. You are making it sound like it's only the men who need women, no, the theology requires women needing men too. So that part of the equation is equaled. What inequality are we left with? Overall control/presidency.
quote:The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
So, Brian, basically LDS theology is wrong because it will make people leave? C'mon. I don't agree with them on every point, but I know as well as anyone here that popularity <> truth.
If some women want to belong to churches or other groups in which they aren't allowed positions of power, that's their choice. There's no need to disparage them as being brainwashed.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- There have been many (if not MOST) Bishops who have not been Stake Presidents first.
I think the problem is one of a misunderstanding of terminology: Stake Presidents have responsability over many wards; Bishops have responsability over a single ward.
And yes, there are stake presidents who have not been bishops first. There is a former stake president in our stake that now teaches a teenage Sunday School class. I became Elders Quorum President from being a substitute Sunday School teacher.
In perhaps the greatest example of non-gradation, one of the apostles, Henry B. Eyring, became an apostle after being a Stake President. (Stake Presidents are advised by area authorities, who are advised by the Seventies, who have a Presidency, and who are in turn advised by the Quorum of the Apostles. Um. . . I think that's how it works-- I may be mistaken about the Area Authorities though.)
quote:I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens.
The first prophet of the modern church was a 14 year old son of an itinerant farmer.
quote:Is it not the case that the Prophet -- and the Apostles -- are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called?
Yes-- for obvious reasons. But being active in chuch callings does not equal a desire or ability to 'rise through the ranks,' as it were. As I've pointed out.
quote:the issue is one of sheer control. Whether or not it is a burden, right privilege, whatever you want to call it, men hold ultimate control over women.
This will come as a surprise to many of the women I work with in our ward. Would you please let them know? It will make our ward meetings SO much shorter, because we won't have to even bother with the dames, which constitute about 1/2 - 3/4 of the leadership in our ward.
What exactly do you mean by ULTIMATE CONTROL? You've referred several times to how priesthood holders can keep women from the Mormon idea of salvation, but haven't really elaborated. How exactly am I (as a priesthood holder) to stop the women in our ward from continuing to bother me in the Afterlife?
I'd REALLY like to know.
(I swear, if I get one more call to help Sister Mockle move her piano, I'm gonna die.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry-- I edited the post because while I've heard that (I posted that majority of people who file for divorce are women), I don't have the information on hand, and I don't feel like looking it up right now.
Valuing harmony isn't a gender-standard trait, IMO.
But what kind of harmony are we talking about? Are you saying that women would rather get along than be thought of as having the right or correct opinion?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
So yes, it is fairly* clear that women file for divorce more often than men do.
I would argue (harmoniously, of course ) that this is actually to ACHIEVE harmony. I am not at all in favor of divorce. But in most cases, by the time someone files papers, it is not meant as a disruptive act. It is a get-me-out-of-this-I/my kids-can't-take-it-anymore! act of desperation.
*I qualify this only because the links seem to draw primarily on a single book based on a single study.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of interest, can you really be an agnostic Mormon? Isn't one of the very tenets of Mormonism the claim that anyone who sincerely asks God to reveal Himself will get an answer? By this logic, why would you be a Mormon if you HAVEN'T felt the presence of God -- and if you HAVE felt the presence of God, why would you be an agnostic?
I'm sorry. My tortured syntax seems to have confused things. I'm not an agnostic. What I was trying to say is that *if* I hadn't had the spiritual experiences that I have had, that's probably what I would be [taking into consideration my temperment, personality and natural proclivities].
If you don't fix me a sandwich, you'll never see even the dark side of heaven. I'll deny your undeniable baptism, I will, and see if I won't.
Now, go on. There are plenty of tomatoes in the fridge. I like them sliced thick, please, and only one leaf of lettuce. And don't be stingy with the ham. And I like wheat bread, lightly toasted.
Well? Go, go go. I'm hungry!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, patriarchy is never better than the possible equality offered by other parts of worldly views. This is because patriarchy will continue to bolster things, which even though you might claim should be unrelated, will be by their defenders: lower wages for women, more abuse for women, etc. One can try to mitigate these away and argue alternative causalities, but the fact is that many of these problems would not be present if theology didn't attempt to theologically-rationalize chauvenism(patriarchy).
And for those who continue to repeat that "it's just the way it is because doctrine says thus," that doesn't really work in the modern world. The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
A few things:
1. So do you claim that it's utterly impossible for the Mormon version of patriarchy to have at least some positive differences from the 'traditional western partriarchy'? Do you see how the conflation of Mormonism with other patriarchies is just as problematic as Mormons stereotyping all feminists as radical ones instead of realizing that there are feminisms?
2. I don't quite buy the whole "the fact is" argument. Or rather, I should say that I don't think theology is solely at fault for the abuses that have been perpetuated in the name of patriarchy [and again I don't deny the problems -- only the idea that there's only one solution for everyone]. It seems to me that a more fundamental problem is the devilish idea of trying to exercise power over another, of destroying free agency through fear, violence, and deprivation of the basic means of living. This is a trend, a meme, that Mormonism is trying to stand against -- although we may not always do so in the same way that others think it should be done. In fact, my major problem with modern LDS culture is that it should be a little more anti-consumerist and corporate abuse and greed than it is [although not anti-free market, rule of law, and property rights].
3. The bottom line for me is this: since we already live in a world where men have been dominant and have controlled many aspects of women's lives [and again -- this isn't quite as clearcut as *some* feminists make it out to be -- the more we learn of women's history, the more it becomes apparent that women found ways to disrupt or circumvent abuse and the power structures -- which is not to say that that's good -- obviously they shouldn't have had to engage in such tactics], what is the best way to go about changing social structures? Militiant feminism didn't really work. The whole trying to make men more sensitive movement had some success among the middle class, but also wasn't without it's own problems. The more I see the Mormon experiment in operation, the more I think that it does have the capacity to change the hearts of men so that they treat women better. I'm not saying that I can then say that this should be a universal -- I find some aspects to whole promisekeepers movement troubling, for instance [that hypocrisy coming into play again], although I think as a movement it has slowed down quite a bit.
4. I may be wrong, but aren't the denominations who have been the most progressive in ordaining women also the movements who are experiencing diminishing memberships? Now, when it comes right down to it, this troubles me, because I think I'd rather have more liberal Lutherans and Methodists and Unitarians around me than Evangelical Christians [which reflects my own biases -- and ones that I don't think most Mormons share], but my point is that the more secular, feminist, liberal theology of the U.S. and Western Europe doesn't have a whole lot of traction at the moment.
5. In regards to coercion and the marketplace, or whatever, just like many other religious denominations, Mormonism's problem, actually is that more women convert [or stay in the faith if they were born into it] than men. In almost all cases that I know of where both the husband and the wife convert -- they either do it together as a couple, or the wife is converted first and her husband joins later. I'm not sure exactly what your trying to portray here, but again, trying to lay your model of thinking onto Mormonism maybe doesn't lead to all the analogues that you think it does. [Which is again, not to say that there aren't problems with the Mormon model at times and that I don't wish that we as a community could progress farther faster in this area.]
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
This I had a problem with. That statement is true, but you also have to consider where the word "woman" came from. Well, it was originally two words: "womb man". Now say that five times fast. You were saying woman on the last one weren't you?
Getting to the point....
If in fact women are womb men, then aren't they also by nature sinful? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope dkw is doing ok. I'm sure the holidays are busy for her since she has to supervise two separate congregations. I would be very interested to here her comments on the "declining membership" but though.
For all you LDSers out there. While I may not agree, you are being quite coherent and I suspect Brian M has just been predestinated to not understand what you are saying.
quote:They believe that it is OK that they do not wield the ultimate worldly power
And what is the ultimate worldly power? Wouldn't the ultimate worldly power be to create life?
I think the main problem here is one of perspective. Brian can't concieve of a view other than a worldly view of power and so can't understand why we believe as we do, other than to say we are brainwashed. Most LDS members strive to be less like the world, not more like it. Power is not something to be sought after and wielded over another in our religion. I'm sure there are times that the Prophet and Apostles weary of the burden they have. It is a burden to lead and lead righteously.
No where in our religion does it say that the man has the ultimate authority over the woman. In fact we are taught that the husband and wife are equal in a marriage, that they should work together and that decisions should be arrived at jointly.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have morphed into an argument that can never be settled.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe this issue is one of perspective since the males within the mormon church obviously acknowledge the positions they hold exclusively have the worth they do. You can say I'm twisting words, you can say I am using the wrong mindset, but those objections are tautological to prove your points. You say that power is the wrong way to think about it, but then you go on about the ability to give life as being the ultimate power. I can refute that argument completely by simply pointing out that you are dependant upon men to give life and much as they are on you.
So, even though you argue giving birth is unique to women and is equal to or better than men's power, in reality you are co-dependant for that upon male genetic contribution. So lets look to things that are exclusive and related to power. You say we shouldn't look to power. Why not? The church does all the time with telling wives to yeild to their husbands in matters of authority. So since the church decided to enter that arena its fair game. After all governance of man is the most important aspect of this world to non-believers, and still very important to believers also.
There can be no significant objection or dissent to your views if "the proper mindset," as you call it, would be used. I find that logically deplorable. I guess that's a whole other argument: that faith should not be evalauted by those terms anyway. I guess its all a matter of who gets to you first as a child, rationalists or theists. Because it seems one closes the door to the other. Some of you accuse feminists of being close minded but in reality they are opening their minds to avenues that have been traditionally denied to women. Instead there are attempts to comfort and curtail women from exploring their potential by assigning them great worth to traditional roles they are progressively seeking to escape.
quote:Some of you accuse feminists of being close minded but in reality they are opening their minds to avenues that have been traditionally denied to women.
Yes, they are. Some of them are also closing avenues. And, again, you speak of "in reality' as if there was one reality. My beef is not with the feminist project [although there are, of course, some platforms pieces that I don't agree with], but rather with those feminists who engage in false dichotomies, and who deny the experiences and desires of religious women.
quote:The church does all the time with telling wives to yeild to their husbands in matters of authority.
Which church are we talking about here? [See Wendybird's post above].
You make a good point partially here:
quote: Instead there are attempts to comfort and curtail women from exploring their potential by assigning them great worth to traditional roles they are progressively seeking to escape.
First, I think many Mormon women would say that they are choosing to embrace the roles -- that they seen what has happened to a generation of women who have embraced the workforce and nontraditional lifestyles, and while they want to be educated and to find value outside the home, they also want to be in the home, and they are frustrated that our current economic climate forces both men and women to drive themselves into the ground trying to provide for a family -- even when the family is willing to make sacrifices of material comforts.
However, I would agree that sometimes Mormon men place too much empahsis on roles. That's something I've talked with my priesthood class about -- about not defining our spouses by what they do, their daily tasks. Just as it isn't good for us to define ourselves and our values by what we do [work, school, etc.]. I do think that Mormons could do better at valuing motherhood while at the same time realizing that involvement in education, the community, politics, service, and, yes, even the workplace is valuable and doesn't necessarily detract from being a mother.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to mention this first off. I mean no offense to anyone. If offence is taken, let me assure you now that I am truly sorry.
BrianM. From your posts, I can't believe you've had any serious experience with the mormon religion. From what I've experienced, I'd have to say that the mormon 'Power Structure' is more a stabilizing structure to insure doctrines are all taught the same everywhere. The mormon 'power structure' is specifically designed to keep any one person or group of people from wielding unrightious dominion branching off into apostasy.
Your argument about woman and man's co-dependancy to bring children into this world is also unfounded. Am I not right in saying that according to the mormon religion, heaven is reached only by married couples? That makes entrance into the next life dependant on both the man and the woman. Every effort I know of that the mormon church puts forth is a cooperative effort equally shared between men and women.
I could say more, but I'll just say this: You are certainly free to have your own opinions, but it is only reasonable to have informed opinions. At least consider that some of these people know what they're talking about when they tell you about their own religion.
Once again, there was no offense intended in anything I have just written. I only wish to encourage you to not try to pass opinion off as fact.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, your tidbits on what you think my experience is means nothing since that is something this board avoids: lording unprovable authority over others. If people on this thread keep taking pot-shots and what they think my experience is or is not then I will have to assume it's because they can't competantly answer the brightline issue.
My point about the co-dependancy of child birth was a response to someone claiming having children was something exclusive to women, empowering them. I know that if a woman tried to make her child birthing experience exclusive by being a single parent within the church it would be frowned upon, not upheld as something empowering her.
Telling someone to embrace a traditional role that obviously benefits the established male gender without showing a clear brightline on why women shouldn't choose other life-paths besides sheer "that's the way god says it is" is pretty unfounded. Men are given much more leeway in their own lives.
quote: Telling someone to embrace a traditional role that obviously benefits the established male gender without showing a clear brightline on why women shouldn't choose other life-paths besides sheer "that's the way god says it is" is pretty unfounded. Men are given much more leeway in their own lives.
Which ignores that Scott already said:
quote: First, I think many Mormon women would say that they are choosing to embrace the roles -- that they seen what has happened to a generation of women who have embraced the workforce and nontraditional lifestyles, and while they want to be educated and to find value outside the home, they also want to be in the home, and they are frustrated that our current economic climate forces both men and women to drive themselves into the ground trying to provide for a family -- even when the family is willing to make sacrifices of material comforts.
posted
I don't see how it ignores that at all. You see, merely finding reasons to rationalize a current, suggested choice does not make up for the under-evalutations of alternatives. Merely getting a college education and a few other things do not count if one is really trying hard to to evaluate other paths. I am not saying they should be forced to, I am saying they shouldn't be discouraged from it.
posted
As far as I can tell, Brian, the only thing that would convince you that women in so-called "patriarchal" religions are not oppressed is for the religions to change.
The fact is, in most cases, the women are fully aware of the non-traditional alternatives. They have chosen to integrate them, or not, based on an educated appraisal.
Your continued insistence upon seeing such women as "brainwashed" (or under-educated) is, quite frankly, very insulting.
posted
Rivka, what is insulting is your taking my words out of context and the use of those degrading eye-rolling smileys. I said that women are only "brainwashed" when they think it is a good thing that men decide what is ultimately good and right for them. Take that as you may, but please, stop with the ad-hominem.
posted
BrianM. It doesn’t matter who or where you are, if you want people to take you seriously, you must establish some credibility. I’m not talking about a university degree or things of that nature, but believability.
You can’t tell the mormons on this board that because the men of their faith hold the priesthood and not the women, mormon women are somehow oppressed. That is an inference based on patterns in human history. In this case, it simply isn’t true.
It is true that this board avoids ‘lording unprovable authority over others,’ but I can’t accept an opinion that is not backed up by facts (a virtue this board does approve of).
Edited to add:
Since I have nothing to add to this thread besides what I've already done in my posts above, I am exiting this conversation. I will be willing to answer any objections to what I have said, but in a different place. I sincerely apologise if any opinions I have stated have caused you anger, but I don't take back any of the facts relevant to the topic at hand.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Law Maker ]
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you expect me to gain credibility by accepting the differing opinions of others as facts with which to discuss things based upon, then that is a ridiculous expectation
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How does that follow?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You keep taking people's words and twisting them to say that, but it's not what anyone here seems to me to be saying at all. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
under breath about people who edit posts and make me look nuts*![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) that this is actually to ACHIEVE harmony. I am not at all in favor of divorce. But in most cases, by the time someone files papers, it is not meant as a disruptive act. It is a get-me-out-of-this-I/my kids-can't-take-it-anymore! act of desperation.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
