posted
Hopefully LDS missionaries do not come across that way. They are taught not to, anyway. They are taught to not tear down other's beliefs or argue. They are to be respectful, only inviting, not pressuring. Unfortunately, the individuals are not perfect and don't always follow these instructions.
I was an LDS missionary back in the day. I think it is pretty cool how LDS proselyting is done. We have a book of scripture most people have not read before (The Book of Mormon). We offer it, free, for people to read and examine. We ask them to pray about it. If they felt the influence of God (the Spirit) we identified it as such. If they believed what we were showing them is scripture and what we were teaching iss true, we asked them to act on their belief, thus turning belief into faith. That would include learning more and eventually baptism. We did share with them our own faith and confidence in these things. We tried to be good about being turned down. After all, we were not doing it for money or our own success (at least, we weren't *supposed* to be, heh,) but we were presenting what we believed to be truth and inviting others to investigate it.
To me, that is the most important thing about LDS missionary work, that everyone has an opportunity to hear the message and decide for themselves. If they decide they don't believe in it, that is fine. I might be sad, I don't deny that, but there isn't much I can do about it, is there? Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubble, I think that that sense of "working together" is present in LDS culture, though certainly still resisted by many. There is a document recently put out by the First Presidency of the LDS church called "The Family: A Proclaimation to the World" that discusses the official church doctrine on gender roles.
quote: By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
(Bold added by me.) But there are certain core points of doctrine that are fixed despite changes in society. Priesthood is one of those things. This is contingent on the belief that this does indeed come from God and is *not* something arbitrary created by mankind or society.
This quote makes no mention of the priesthood because it is intended to apply to the world as a whole, all fathers, whether priesthood holders or not. While the divine role of the father may be to "preside" over the family, often the mother does as much if not more of the actual leading. And the husband defers to the wife when the wife is right. It should work both ways. He doesn't have the final say just because he is male or holds the priesthood. He seeks to do God's will. And wise husbands understand that inspiration from God often comes through the wisdom of their wives.
posted
Why don't gender roles make sense, Synethesia?
I had no idea what it meant to be a mother until I had children. I experienced very strong instinctual reactions that my husband simply did not experience. With me, I seemed to know how to react to a baby's need and social interaction. With my husband, it took him quite a bit of time to learn how to react. In some cases, I had to explicitly teach him. His inabiltities were not due to something lacking in his education, just as my abilities were not due to some cultural advantage I had. It simply was.
Men and women are different. In general, they are more suited to the traditional roles that, as TMedina said, evolved long before religion did.
Because in this last century we've had baby formula, people forget that women weren't and usually aren't vulnerable only for the nine months of pregnancy, but that they were usually vulnerable for a full two years after the baby was born. The only exceptions were aristocrats who had nursemaids to feed their babies.
If the mother died, the baby almost always died unless another woman who still had milk (she had usually just lost a child) could take the baby. This is true even of very recent times. My grandmother knew a family where the mother died of childbed fever. The baby died gradually, living for another six weeks as it suffered because they only had cows milk to give it. Formula is a good thing for some, but it has really warped our feminine understanding of what it means to be mother.
Here is my question: Why do women so want to be more like men?
quote: Here is my question: Why do women so want to be more like men
I believe a lot of it can be blamed on the propagation of the "evil Eve" myth by both the well meaning and the downright evil.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
No one here - lma, Theca, anne kate, me has said that they want to be more like men. I think they and I just want to be more like ourselves without being condemned as amoral and unnatural for it.
---
You have to separate what is God's plan and what is best for society. Because the only authority the church has comes from the Lord - if it's reduced to "what is best for society" then it has no more weight than any other crackpot theory out there. There are many different ideas of what is best for society, and there are strong advocates for all of them.
posted
I once found myself in a non-LDS Christian gathering where they asked for women to admire. I said Eve. She was the mother of all children, taught her children in righteousness, was a good companion to her children. If she hadn't made her decision, we wouldn't be here. Immediately, I discovered I'd said something very, very wrong. It was something of a suprise to me to discover how badly Eve is percieved. Of course, this is why I appreciate the LDS doctrine so much. In our story, we have discussions where we wonder if Eve, percieving that Adam wouldn't make the hard decision necessary to bring the full Plan of God into action, acted herself even though she knew what the consequences would be.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely off topic but I'll post it because I think it is fun:
"Born with a silver spoon in your mouth." Heard on the radio about how this saying originated from trying to feed a baby whose mother could not breastfeed for some reason. Silver spoon because usually only the wealthy could afford to have someone attempt this for them. Most of these babies did not survive. The fix was that in the Victorian era glass bottles and pig nipples were used. This led to much more milk getting into the babies and a bit better survival rate.
My best recollection of this trivia
Also, Beverly, I edited my last post, but it is the last on the previous page and you might not catch it. My original post came off a bit too flip, I think.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, according to my understanding, in much of our earth's history, being a woman *sucked*. Often because of unnecessary prejudice. But sometimes due to practical necessity. Life was hard. Trevor explained very well how that necessitated many of the differences in gender roles. Of course, quite often, it did get carried away beyond necessity.
I think a bit of that carries over into our oh-so-enlightened generation where women still think that being a woman sucks.
posted
Amika, you are soooo right. Most of Christiandom looks at Eve with much blame and even hate. You would not believe the horrible things women were subjected to and all because of that rotten Eve. It is ugly, horrendous. Makes me sick.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Very often, prophets and apostles in our church refer to their wives as the spiritual centers of their families. That used to strike me as odd, coming from men who I consider to be very spiritually in-tune themselves. Then I met my wife, and discovered that they are right. I can see more clearly how their their goodness and wisdom has been developed through long association with their wives, and how their mannerisms reflect how they treat their wives and how they listen to them. They are, perhaps, the public face of a solidly two-person team.
When a man is called to a leadership position in the church, his wife is customarily present in the interview and is given what I consider to be veto power over the calling. My wife has had the opportunity to veto several callings of mine now. She hasn't said no yet, so I'm not sure what would happen if she did. But her feelings have always been taken as seriously as mine, and it is always made clear that the calling is really being extended to both of us.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubble, I looked back and I am not sure which post you edited. It may be that I only saw the edited version. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is created by humans can be undone. Society in general lays out a lot of "shoulds" without the ability to reward those who follow them. Getting married at 19 and having a ton of children does NOT guarantee that everything will be dandy. Societal "shoulds" have no weight because society doesn't have the ability to guarantee a result.
This is a big point for me. I don't care in the slightest for what society demands - it does not care about me. Amka even said above that individuals are worthless and people are only valued for what they bring to the table. Forget that.
posted
What I see is a basic problem of definitions.
The "True Believer" believes that gender is assigned by God as part of your personality as well as your physicallity. There are abilities and emotions hard-wired into people that make them Men or Women. These correspond to their sexual organs.
Women have the most important job on Earth, that of raising young children. Other jobs, such as leadership of the church, fall to men who are incapable of the more important job or raising young children.
Problem occurs when the misguided men forget the importance of the womans main job, over estimate the importance of themselves and treat women as being little more than the children they are raising. Or problems occur when women refuse thier role as mothers, and strive for other jobs, not as important to God's plan.
The skeptical Nonbeliever believes that men and woman are both equally capable of leadership and deep religious debate. Abilities, personality, and skills are, if not separate from gender, vary widely. While some women do not have the skills for motherhood, some men do. To typecast and restrict people based on whether their sexual organs are innies or outties is a waste of good people.
The problems occur when men want thier church and their power and their legacy to grow, push women into mass producing Mormons with a goal of out babying the other religions. While many woman thrive in this lifestyle, they pressure other women to conform to thier ways. The others feel pressured, out of place, and second class citizens.
The childless couples, or individuals, are pushed into secondary roles, just as exciting as the handicapped person, who's main role in society is "Allowing other people to care for them."
Personally, I believe God has a much more detailed and intricate plan for humanity than for simple Man Pray, Woman Lay ideology. Every person is sacred, and each has their own destiny and duty on earth. What that is for each of us if for each of us to pray for and find with God's help. For someone to say, "God made women to reproduce children for the church, and if you are not doing that, you need to do something equally as productive, but there is nothing equally as productive that you can do" seems to me to be limiting what God's plan is for 1/2 the world's population.
I do have one question in regards to that child's mislearned statement.
If the highest calling of a man while on this earth is to learn more of the true Religion, to the point that such learning will continue after death, that is fine.
However, if the highest calling of a woman is to birth and raise children, what will she do in heaven?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, Amka never said individuals were worthless. I think she meant to put forth the idea that individuals ought to "give something back" to society. She acknowledges that people can do that regardless of their marital/parental status.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, Amka, not all men are like that. There's tons of men out there that are better with their children than women are... I don't think it's really biological.. Otherwise, how can you explain gays and transexuals or other people that don't fit into the black and white ideas of male and female? It's why those commercials drive me so insane or the sitcoms about men messing up the house when their wives are away. Just about all the shows are like this and it drives me nuts. We're individuals. A woman does not nessasarily want to be a man if she wants to take on a typically male role like being a president or a CEO. Of course, at the same time, a woman shouldn't be looked down on if she wants to stay at home with her kids or something. All people are different. A man isn't less of a man if he does housework. A woman will not turn into a man if she decides to play sports. People are all different. That's why those stupid magazines and books like Men are from Mars annoy me so much... Because I just don't fit into to that mold and it makes me feel a bit inferior from time to time which is such a waste.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you want me to go back and quote all the posts that said an individual is worthless, that people that aren't in families shouldn't expect to be as fully a part of society as those with families, and if someone feels like they don't fit in, they need to at least be quiet because society sure as heck doesn't care?
hmm, I am a female engineer with what I guess is the beginning of a decent career ahead of me. I am the only female other than the secretary in my department.
It's not that I want to be More like men. It is that I AM like them. I am actually over on a wierd extreme, where my thought patterns, though completely natural on my part are even viewed as more "male" than what the actual males respond. My own gender, with very few exceptions (fortunately many of them are on hatrack) doesn't make sense to me, I have no goals and ideals that are common with my normal gender.
At the same time as far as biologically and romantically speaking I am a functioning female human being. Fortunately I do have a guy who loves me exactly the way I am, and doesn't ask me to be different. But I often feel like I'm some weird sort of "other" gender. Now I'm not discounting the biological. Maybe some wierd human nurturing instinct will kick in later on in my life, but right now it sure hasn't. Don't give me a baby to hold and assume I instinctively know what to do because I'm female. I haven't a clue. I don't even particularly like holding babies. The closest my nurturing instinct comes is to my dogs, and that is a very different instinct than with children.
I really don't fit in well with most patriarchal church structures. I'm a living breathing contradiction and anomaly to what they teach. As a result, I'm leaning more and more to the United Methodist direction should I ever outright choose. @Dana
quote: Personally, I believe God has a much more detailed and intricate plan for humanity than for simple Man Pray, Woman Lay ideology
Dan R, I am sorry if we gave you this impression. I don't think anyone here believes that. And I think those who do are wrong.
From your comments, it seems clear to me that you don't understand what the LDS priesthood is or means. Women teach. Women learn. Women teach men. Men and Women both possess wisdom. They are to learn to possess more.
As for women in the eternities, we actually believe that women will continue to bear and nurture spirit children, Husband and Wife being exalted together to become just like God. Becoming Gods in their own right.
posted
For me, the desire is to be myself. I don't want to be a man, but I do want to do some things that are traditionally considered masculine activities (being an engineer, for example). I'm not that interested in conforming to a particular gender role, whether masculine or feminine. As for family roles, my ideal would be for both my husband and I to work part time and to share the housekeeping and child raising duties.
I think that there's nothing wrong with wanting to conform to gender roles. If that's what comes naturally, and what you're suited for, that's great! I just think that it's more efficient to focus on what people are good at and enjoy doing rather than on (what I consider to be) less relevent characteristics such as sex or race. Except in cases such as childbearing, where sex is extremely relevent.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, "Men are from Mars" covers a lot of ground that can be applied, generally speaking, to a lot of people.
There are always exceptions to the rule as no one relationship or self-help book will ever address all possible points of contention between men and women.
From what I read, it was very helpful - although it was too little, too late.
For example - a fairly often heard complaint "why don't men listen" takes a little bit of translating. When women say that and get mad when we (men) repeat verbatim what they said and we men are confused because we just demonstrated that yes, we are indeed listening.
quote:There are abilities and emotions hard-wired into people that make them Men or Women. These correspond to their sexual organs.
Dan, I think that there are a number of scientists that would agree with this statement almost to the letter. Specifically that many moods and psychologies are effected in a great way by hormonal balances, and that these balances are regulated by which organs you've got.
We previously heard testimony about how a wife was much more attuned to a new child than the husband. Is there really no physical reason why this might be more likely to happen this way as opposed to the husband being the more nurturing type?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A woman does not nessasarily want to be a man if she wants to take on a typically male role like being a president or a CEO.
Yes. But (beware, the following *will* offend some) I do think there is a trend of women wanting to be more crass "just like men" or more shallowly sexual "just like men" or more aggressive "just like men" when it isn't actually a part of that individual's nature. But they are just wanting to "rebell" against the old stereotypes.
I am *not* saying that all men are crass, shallowly sexual, or aggressive, but I am saying that those have been the stereotypes for a long, long time. Women were supposed to be "nice" and "refined". While I hate the double standard of calling a woman a bitch for things that a man would be applauded for, I don't think being "nice" and "refined" are necessarily things to be rebelled against. "Submissive" yes, "nice" and "refined" no.
I don't fit into the molds either. But I hate it when people do stuff just for the sake of rebelling against a stereotype. People should just be who they are and do what they believe is right! If you don't fit the stereotype, that is fine. I don't fit it either.
"Why can't women just accept their role in the world"
said sweetly under one's breath.
Why do (some) women so much want men to be like women? Because it's tough to relate to someone who makes a point out of being completely different than you; who can't relate to your interest, desires, needs, and hatreds. But this doesn't have to do with being like a man or a woman. This has to do with fostering good relationships, regardless of your gender.
There are personalities that lend themselves to particular roles in *today's* society. Men and women possess those personalities. They are not necessarily trying to be like one another. They may be trying to adopt the personality that is appropriate for that activity or role.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I also don't believe in imitating the worst parts of the male stereotype just to rebel against the female stereotype. On the other hand, I won't refrain from competing with males so I can be a nice, submissive female. You have a very good point though. *adds to the Bev luv on this thread*
Banna, I sort of understand where you're coming from. I'm not as masculine in my thinking patterns as you say you are, but I often understand men better than women. Actually, someone I know recently commented that when I get around to dating, I'm going to be at an advantage because when it comes to social situations, I sometimes think like a guy.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, I like a lot of the things you say. But when you say "everyone has a masculine and a feminine side" realize that what you mean is everyone has aspects of character that fit into masculine and feminine roles as currently defined by society. These things are not laws of nature but our very narrow parochial customs. They aren't even really ancient at all. Very recent history.
When you say things like "being a woman sucked", you also mean that having to fit into the narrow gender roles prescribed by that particular society at that particular time sucked. You keep using phrases that make me think you are thinking of these things as natural law of some sort. They are not that at all.
I agree wholeheartedly with what kat said. Women don't want or ask to be men. We only seek to be ourselves, and for that to be accepted as a valid thing to be. One shouldn't have to fight for permission to be oneself. That is nonsensical. One just is, with our without anyone's permission.
[ August 02, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, I think you are right in that your mind is naturally more like the "stereotypical man's". Mine is also, but probably not to the same extent. I don't think I could be a very good engineer, my math is too weak. I do think I could be a decent scientist though. Also, I am very good with maps, and that whole "spacial reasoning" is supposed to be more a stereotypical male trait.
No denying there is crossover, it just bugs me when young women get the feeling from society that their natural nurturing feelings (assuming they have them to begin with) are "sissy" and "demeaning". I really wish that pressure to not be motherly weren't so strong right now.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's perspective. AJ probably feels there is crazy pressure everywhere to get married and have kids and forget what she is so good at.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak, I think I understand what you are saying, that the "male" side of a female and the "female" side of a male is just that persons individual variation.
I do, though, believe in a "Platonic ideal", if you will of maleness and femaleness beyond what society programs into us. I believe those echoes can be found in each of us, despite our variation. I believe in the idea of gender that transcends this mortal body. I'm not even sure I believe that God "assigned" us gender. I think it was just who we were naturally.
posted
I wish people wouldn't equate "feminine" traits like compassion as being weak. See, here is my problem... Many men, in order to be considered real men will act tough, aggressive and sometimes cruel, masking their real selves... Especially men that are trying to pretend that they are not gay. This makes for a terrible relationship. How can you relate equally to someone who is putting up a wall to who they really are?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too wish that compassion in men in particular were not seen as a weakness. I understand a certain need for it in pre-modern societies, but these shows of "machismo" are not nearly so crucial now. I hope it is a dinosaur that will die. Soon.
If men like to feel protective of their families and whatnot, want to fight for them, I kinda like that though. I just hate the "big front" that some men feel the need to put up for each other and other women.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'll say it. I said that an individual was worthless to society if they did not contribute. Do you want me to go further. Some people are worse than worthless to society. They are detrimental to society when they actively try to harm society for whatever purpose.
Then, in a following post, I said I had realized that I had gone out of bounds of the specific discussion: that of the church organization, and into social needs. With that, I thought I had taken that argument out of the specific discussion of what is or is not equal treatment within the LDS church organization. If you want to continue that discussion, another thread might be appropriate.
It seems this one is evolving into gender roles as expressed by religion.
Synth,
We aren't talking about individual trends. We are talking about statistical majorities, and male and female psychology and physiology. By gender roles, I don't mean to say that a man shouldn't help out around the house. If you'd read an earlier post of mine, I contended that part of our problem has been a transition from an agrarian society where men worked outside on the farm from sun up to sun down and women depended on them to do that job while they took care of the other aspects of life. The chores women had done (because it was more practical for them to do) still had to be done, even when men began to get more satisfying and less demanding jobs. We've had to reschool ourselves as to how the husband/wife partnership should work. But even with those considerations, I will still contend that statistically, in two parent families, the woman is the better nurturer than the man. I've witnessed literally hundreds of families in which this is what I see. Of course there are always exceptions, but much of my argument has been this:
We cannot mold society around the exceptions.
On the other front I'm arguing: We cannot mold the church around exceptions.
I have never said exceptions are worthless to society or to the church, though. On the contrary, I've said that often the exceptions have a very unique and enriching contribution to society that is necessary to keep it vibrant, if only they are willing to be the standout rather than make society admit them as the norm.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, I get the feeling you are arguing against something that's never been said in this thread.
It's not innapropriate to bring up the worthless comment. When questioned about the role of someone who doesn't conform to expected gender roles in the church, you responded back that individuals were worthless. Even if you take it back now, that means they are associated in your head.
Various sociological theories about society, especially ones that devalue individuals, have NO PLACE as a determinor or defense of church policy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you want me to go back and quote all the posts that said an individual is worthless, that people that aren't in families shouldn't expect to be as fully a part of society as those with families, and if someone feels like they don't fit in, they need to at least be quiet because society sure as heck doesn't care?
Do you honestly think she feels the individual's needs are worthless? I didnt' get that from what she said.
I do think she was trying to defend her point, and that she feels that sometimes it is to be expected that the majority will be catered to to a greater extend than the minority.
As the Vulcans say, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." That doesn't mean the minority is unimportant, but there are only so many resources, so much time to devote to each thing. The majority requires more attention because there are more of them.
I think an example could be: If most women in the church are married and mothers, there are going to be more lessons about how do do these things successfully then lessons about specific situations singles face, like dating. Those lessons, articles, talks, however, will exist. There will just not be as many.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see, part of accepting 'feminine' traits as not weak is to embrace them.
I want to stay at home and nurture my children because I think that is what is best for them. I've gained wonderful experience that I would never gain otherwise. I am a powerful woman. These are great opportunities given to me by God.
I will not get my doctrate in physics, as a result.
But those aren't my only dreams. I am also a writer. I think my writing will be more enriched by my motherhood than it would have been by me being a scientist. Science is still my favorite subject, and I explain everything to my girls. I am not recognized by the scientific community as great, but I still learn new science all the time. I don't need their recognition to feel that I am a powerful woman.
You don't have to be a mother to be a powerful woman. A woman can do nearly everything a man can do, if she wants. But once you are a mother, it suprises me how eager we are to give over our power to others in an effort to be more recognized by our community.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really missed my point then, Kat. Did you read anything else of what I wrote in that post? Even the sentence right after that one?
quote:The individual, honestly, is worthless unless they are contributing to society. Of course they don't have to be part of a family to contribute. But they shouldn't expect the same privilages as the family.
And in my very next post:
quote: We often need individuals who are vastly different from the norm to give something to our society that it lacks. But the fact of the matter is that in doing so, they are losing other things. You can't have everything.
You've latched onto one thing I said, interpreted it your way, and then said that this what how I truly thought. I'm sorry if you choose to do that.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure we can as statistics for the most part are not as important as stories, individual stories. Group thought has got to die as soon as possible, it's the only way we can take society to the next level. We can no longer make assumptions based on gender even with studies backing them up.. The majority HAS to adapt to the minority. That's just all there is to it... Wildcards like gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transpeople challenge therese old ideas... That maybe it's NOT pure biology or pure doctrine but something more...... It's difficult to articulate.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But once you are a mother, it suprises me how eager we are to give over our power to others in an effort to be more recognized by our community.
I think I see where you are coming from. I hate the societal belief that if you are not earning a paycheck you don't matter or are somehow worthless. I do not earn a paycheck. I sometimes joke that I am my husband's employee. After all, since I don't bring in a paycheck, I eat because of his money, just like employees of their employers. In return, I have lots of time to do things that he doesn't have time to do.
But if I am not watching my kids, I am paying someone else to. I am employing them to do something for me. Some people need to do this (work and do day care). Some people kinda need to but also do it because they want to. Some people don't need to, they just want to. I do not want to judge and say that is bad. But if I didn't believe that me staying at home with my kids were not the better choice, I wouldn't be doing it, now, would I? Well, I guess I could be doing it because I *like* it, and I think there is a lot of that too....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is important. I believe that the church is trying to do this on points that do not go against God's will. Again this goes back to the assumption of actually knowing what God's will is. If you believe that it is not God at all but man's will, then it all is arbitrary.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe that it is not God at all but man's will, then it all is arbitrary.
Exactly. If it isn't the Lord's, why on earth bother? Why bother building a society that doesn't care about you? Why bother making sure the people have picked the "right" way have an easier life? If there's no place in a society for someone, there's no reason to stick around if it's a purely human creation. There's no point. If it's just the Buena Vista social club, then it has no hold.
And if it's the Lord creation - if it's the instution that is led by Lord through inpired leaders - then there's a place for everyone.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That maybe it's NOT pure biology or pure doctrine but something more......
I concede, from what I have seen it must be more complex than that. Yet I do believe what I have already stated. I don't think the two necessarily contradict.
posted
I'm posting about stuff that's far behind in the thread, as I come to it, trying to catch up.
I certainly don't want to learn to be crass or casual about sex or anything of the sort. One of the things that showed me the church is true is that in a time and place when almost NOBODY teaches boys and men to be chaste outside marriage, the church does. Men have as deep a need for chastity as women. I think that boys' natural reticence and modesty is forcibly taken from them by our society, all too often, and it's a terrible thing. I think it traumatizes them and messes up their feelings for women, to a certain extent.
I also have strong parenting and nurturing instincts, as most everyone here probably already knows. <laughs>
But what me, AJ, CT, and anyone in professions that have been viewed as traditionally male in our society are saying is that perhaps your cultural definition of what is feminine is too narrow. Femininity includes these things, but it also includes building and making, understanding, logic, physics, medicine, and so on. In fact, it includes (like masculinity) most every trait that is human. There is far far more overlap than there are distictions. The world's fastest man may be faster than the world's fastest woman at the present time, but there will be many many women at any time who can run faster than the average man.
Amka, does the Brigham Young quote speak to these questions at all? Do you accept his teaching that women have more callings than those in the home?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly really hit it right on, what I was saying.
Let me say the thoughts I had but didn't say. A family has need of the priesthood, and this is the responsibility of the man. This is part of his role as a father and husband. In defining these roles, God has kept His house a house of order. The woman, in the marriage, being the mother, has other very important responsibilities to which she is uniquely qualified. A woman doesn't have to be worthy of her power, but a man does have to be worthy.
Having the priesthood, the man is often called to leadership positions for which the priesthood is necessary: being the Bishop, for example. But what about the women who, because they are not married or don't have children, wouldn't be bogged down with their motherhood? Why couldn't they be given the priesthood so they could be leaders in the church too?
Well, for one thing, high leadership roles require the higher priesthood, which requires marriage.
And for another thing, not being married and not having children are not a guaranteed state of affairs. What would happen when both the woman and man had the same priesthood?
The partnership would become unequal. The woman now has two God given powers: motherhood and the priesthood, while the man has only one. Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood. Just ask my husband, who stands by more or less completely helpless while I grow his child. He can have concern, he can care for me, do extra housework, but in the end it is ME that is doing this and not him.
Many women will always remain husbandless and childless on earth. They are exceptions. Beautiful exceptions, but they can't ask the church to give them special privilege.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe that women have more to contribute than just in their own families and homes!
But, I also think that women can have many "seasons" to their lives. A woman can be a brilliant scientist, politician, musician, artist, etc. and still be willing to devote a certain number of years to being a mother. Whether or not she chooses to depends on how important *she* thinks it is to be a mother in the first place or how she feels about being a stay-at-home-mom vs. day care.
Some women may feel that being a mother is not for them. But I would hope that those who do want to tackle it realize that it is time-consuming and there will be times that they won't have the time to devote to some of the things they used to do.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, for one thing, high leadership roles require the higher priesthood, which requires marriage.
Is this true? If it is, I had never though of it before. Is it required for a bishop or apostle to be married? I honestly don't know.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood. Just ask my husband, who stands by more or less completely helpless while I grow his child.
Bearing a child does take a lot out of you. Porter is a great husband, but he didn't suffer ligament damage and a damaged tailbone from his procreation. Though I suppose he might have if he weren't careful....
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
@Dana
