quote: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
No, what we expect is that you respect that we believe these things not because we are brainwashed or that we are being dominated by our men, but because we have studied things out and have come to these conclusions on our own based on our own intelligence and free agency. You just can't seem to accept the fact that we think for ourselves and still desire to follow these beliefs. We are trying to tell you how this issue is really looked at within our culture. These are the "facts" of our culture.
Anyway, thats enough from me. Hobbes-- your original post was a beautiful explanation and I really enjoyed reading it and pondering on it. Thank you for taking the time.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
First, congratulations Hobbes! When did it happen?
I'd love to post a long post here, but I'm at work and need to, uh, be working. I'll just stick in my two cents.
1. Bless you, Emily Milner. I love what she said - primarily, the more I learn about the doctrine that the Lord has set up, the better I feel I about everything. Any... injustices and crappiness I experience is shown more and more, the more I learn about the gospel, to NOT be sanctioned by the Lord. The Lord has set up the perfect system, and it is implemented imperfectly. That's where the crappiness and unrighteous dominion comes in - but that is NOT the fault of the Lord or of the gospel. Also, the more a man honors his priesthood and takes it seriously, with all the attendant requirements, the better he is. It's fair. I have no problem with the way the Lord has set up the system.
However...
2. I have a huge problem with the way it is often implemented. I don't know if my experience has been unique, but I've had some truly awful experiences with arrogant, sexist, uncaring men who used the priesthood as a weapon, including my older brother and a boyfriend who informed me, when I DIDN'T get a "good idea" answer to the prayer of if we should get married, that I simply wasn't spiritual enough to get the right answer and I should listen to him and do it anyway, because he was the one with the priesthood. He then went on to mention that if I DIDN'T marry him, I would prove myself to be filled with moral failings and moreover, since I was already 22, he was my last chance.
He was full of crap.
I'm pretty sure there's a special place in hell for guys like that.
The worst part is that he really did try to be good. I mean, that's one of the main things that I liked about him - how important the gospel was to him. I have a lot more experience now, so I know just how unrighteous what he was saying was, but at the time I was struggling between what I thought was what my church was saying, and what I simply knew had to be true. I mean, I hardly have a such a poor opinion of the Lord that he would actually support what this guy said.
-------------
I also agree with Zal - if it weren't for spiritual experiences I have had, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures, and the occasional arms-of-comfort-wrapped-around-me prayers, I'd probably fall into the gently-agnostic crowd at Hatrack.
-------------
I wouldn't say that the issue doesn't bother many LDS women. I have talked to MANY that had questions and concerns - more when I was younger. It usually isn't talked about in public meetings because it isn't appropriate - it'd be like having a "So the pope - fraud or not?" speech for the sermon in a Catholic church. The conversations do happen, though, and like any aspect of doctrine or faith, there are lots of questions that may or may not be answered when it's convenient for the questioner.
When I was younger, I saw the authority aspect of the priesthood much more often that the service aspect. I've gained enough experience now to witness the service aspect, and to appreciate the hand of the Lord in such service. I've seen average men turned into great ones because of their humility and their willingness to go and do whatever the Lord required.
Speculation: I think for a long time, this was a serious enough issue for me that it kept me from even wanting to get married.
Look at it this way: The priesthood worked when used as the Lord commanded, but seemed to break down everyone when used by mere mortals - especially young ones. On the other hand, marrying a non-member was not an option. *sigh* So, great, all a guy has to do is measure up to the Lord. Yeah, that's not hard.
It's not the same now. I'm older, and I feel a great deal more confident and a great deal less ... vulnerable. Also, I've had my questions answered. If you want to know how, I'll happily e-mail you.
------
What was the point of this? Oh yeah - is it an issue in the church? Well, yes sometimes, but not in the way the world sees it. The occasional abuses and misuses of the priesthood would not be fixed by giving it to everyone, but instead by the men living up to the spirit and requirements of it. If you read the Priesthood sessions of General Conference, and if you read what the general authorities write, the exhortations are truly to that end.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst part is that he really did try to be good.
I'm sorry you had the experiences you did, kat. Sadly, I don't think that they are uncommon.
What angers me about such attitudes [esp. the whole "I know better because I'm more in tune" routine] is that we seem to have too many men who willfully ignore what's being preached and instead are stuck in some idealized 50s view of how gender relations work [it's, I think, a problem that a large portion of current Mormon culture has -- this 50s thing]. I think the good thing that feminism has wrought is that most of the Mormon young women I know won't stand for that crap.
Also:
quote:I wouldn't say that the issue doesn't bother many LDS women. I have talked to MANY that had questions and concerns - more when I was younger.
I minimized this point more than I should have in my previous posts. This is true to my experience as well. What's amazing to me is that I know so many intelligent, strong women who have made the same journey kat has.
And more Mormon men should be bothered by this issue and have these questions and concerns. I don't think that you can truly understand the priesthood without taking some questioning as to why the seeming disparity and what that *truly* means for how we should approach gender relations in this mortal life.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, I'd go out on a limb and say that "stuck in the 50s" thing is symptomatic of the larger population. It's a baby-boomer thing.
As for memberships, there HAS been a general decline in the mainstream-to-liberal Christian denominations.
Howeve, there are many criticisms of some of the more evangelical denominations and their counting of church members (here in the US anyway). Many churches will not remove a member who has moved away, even if they have joined a church in the same denomination... Often they will be counted twice. I read this in some article online, but I can't seem to find it now.
This isn't the case at every evangelical church, of course.
posted
One thing about the orderliness of LDS is that each person only has one set of records. That way if polygamists want to meld into our midst they do at least have to commit deliberate fraud to do it.
Edit: another fact about lds is our divorce rate is same as surrounding culture. While there is social pressure against it, there is also low tolerance of abusiveness, and support for the needy. Also, I think people's expectations can be too high sometimes in (American) LDS culture. Which goes along with the 50's thing.
posted
One of the things I find interesting about the membership loss in what used to be called “mainline Protestantism” is that in the last few years membership is down nationwide, but church attendance is up. This suggests a couple of possibilities. One is that people who are active and attend regularly aren’t formally joining. I’ve seen some of this in the congregations I serve. Another possibility is that the membership loss is among people who weren’t particularly active/regular attenders. There is, it seems to me, less of a societal expectation of church membership than there used to be, so indifferent Christians / agnostics who in former years would have been church members no longer are.
As far as whether membership loss/growth can be correlated to whether or not the denomination ordains women, I’ve never seen any studies. Most of what I’ve seen traces “mainline” denominations vs. evangelical and non-denominational churches, and subsets of both of those groups don’t and do ordain women.
In the end though, it really doesn’t matter. I’m a United Methodist pastor because I was called to it by God. (Dragged into it kicking and screaming might be more accurate.) Churches make their policy decisions based on their understanding of God’s will, not based on whether it will increase or decrease their popularity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't sweat it, guys. I know from experience that there are worse ways for a church to be stuck in the '50s.
As for record-keeping boondoggles, someday I'll have to tell you the story of how record corrections turned into a loss of half a million members and a churchwide panic. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka> Like having an atmosphere reminiscent of the McCarthy trials.
Katharina> Er. Sorry. I didn't mean it that way. And yes, I'm a guy.
I was referring mostly to Zal's contention that "being stuck in the fifties" was a problem with a large (unspecified) part of Mormon culture. As for a 50's attitude toward gender roles, that's serious, a problem for us as well, and I have no idea what can be done about it.
A few years back, btw, I wrote a paper suggesting that most or all of the passages used to keep women out of leadership positions were being misinterpreted. The professor pointed out that I had relied too heavily on a "scholar" of questionable value; more to the point, almost the entire female population of my honors class opined that they couldn't see why a woman would want to preach or be an elder or deacon. I was floored.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not surprised the women said that. You learn very quickly what are understandable audiences and what aren't. I know that for some guys, anything other than the "oh, I'd never want any of that nasty responsibility" stance - even if it is just wondering how/why it works that way - is suspect.
Not that they didn't mean what they said - I just mean even if they had thought differently, I doubt they'd say anything.
posted
There was one girl who did agree with the stance in my paper--ironically, I think she was the one from eastern Kentucky.
You have to understand, Harding was about the most "liberal" church environment I had ever been in at the time. I vastly overestimated what I could get away with saying, especially in my honors classes, which nearly always included evangelicals and others outside our church, and were centers of freewheeling discussion on many philosophical topics. (I had loads of fun...wish I could find so many people like that together again.)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have y'all, Zalmoxis. It's not real-time or face to face, though.
Also, I keep tripping myself up. Where I come from, it's normal to enter a discussion with things like "the Scripture plainly teaches" or "God's Word says" followed by some doctrinal bone of contention. At Harding, I learned some less controversial ways, only to have them shot down by Lissande the moment I used them here. I still don't know how to safely talk about common beliefs in a church without a formal doctrinal statement without sounding like I think I'm an authority or sounding like a troll.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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".
I thought I'd already corrected you of this cute little folk etymology, Nick. "Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."
[ December 01, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.)
I've skimmed a lot of this thread, so I don't know if there was a good answer for this, but I'll provide my own opinion anyway. Yes, God could call anybody worthy to be the prophet. But I think that He puts people in smaller leadership rolls beforehand so that they'll be properly prepared to be prophet (say that five times fast). Maybe Gordon B. Hinckley wouldn't have been ready to lead the Church if he hadn't had all those other leadership positions beforehand. It's sort of like being the president of the U.S., actually. We could elect any qualifying citizen to be president, but we end up electing people who have risen through the political ranks until they're a governor or senator or congressman. By then, they've (hopefully) proven that they could be a good leader.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to be of service. A former actor is my boss in temporal things, so I figure it's only a matter of time before the same is true of the spiritual part of my life.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great post Hobbes, but I would like to add something, from the perspective of someone who recently taught an LDS Gospel Doctrine lesson on ordinances.
Although the ceremony associated with the ordinance of baptism is symbolic, Baptism is not a symbol (at least not from the LDS perspective). Baptism is a priesthood ordinance. It is embued with the power of God. When undertaken it faith, it has real power to change us. When you are baptised, a miracle has been worked on you. You are literally a newly born person. You may not see the full effects of the miracle instantly, but the miracle is real. The symbols involved in baptism, and all the other priesthood ordinances, are there to help us understand the miracle and to build our faith so that we may receive the fullness of the miracle. The miracle is worked through the God's power, through the priesthood and through faith. Those are not symbols -- they are real.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought I'd already corrected you of this cute little folk etymology, Nick. "Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."
Maybe it's just me, but wombman sounds like some new superhero.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
"Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
