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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
How do high divorce rates and instances of domestic violence show that men and women have problems when they work together?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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; "
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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??
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
