289 replies to this topic

[wenglund]

Analytics, on 01 May 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Could you define "healthy gender diversity?"

It is self-evident in happy, fulfilling, mature, and attractive heterosexual relationships.

Quote

In the context of this conversation, you are claiming that "healthy gender diversity" precludes women from doing the tasks associated with being a bishop, stake president, or high counselor such as leading a ward, presiding in meetings, assigning callings, giving temple recommend interviews, participating in church courts, being a leader over an entire unit (as opposed to a leader over the woman’s or children’s auxiliary), etc.

Actually, for the most part, I have not been able to do those things, and I likely won't during this life. Should I break out the sackcloth and ashes and begin chanting about inequality and unfairness?

Quote

What other jobs should women not do in the name of "healthy gender diversity"?

Not surprisingly, you got it just backwards (a result of a lack of healthy gender diversity?). Healthy men and women are focused on what they can do, and not on what they can't. If you weren't stuck back in the outdated mindset of 70's, this may have occurred to you.

Quote

It sounds like you are saying something to the effect that "healthy gender diversity" means men should be bishops, managers, doctors, and pilots, while women should be primary teachers, secretaries, nurses, and flight attendants.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about, but yet presume to put words in my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 01 May 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Well who wouldn't be jealous of us pretty boys, right Wade? We so fly!

You have a point, However, I can't think of why anyone with a healthy sense of self and a proper understanding of love and beneficial relationships, would be jealous of us or anyone else. As for the rest, I suppose charity demands that some accommodation ought to be made for them. So, we will just have to abide our cults of personality. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 01 May 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[wenglund]

Valentinus, on 01 May 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

This is silly. Priesthood isn't about human anatomy.

Tell that to my former "dorm mother," who, when periodically striding unabashed onto the 2nd floor of our men's dormatory where I lived, and at times into the bathroom/shower, would gleefully exclaim: "Cover your priesthood!"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 01 May 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[wenglund]

divinenature, on 01 May 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Motherhood is not the equal of Priesthood office.
Motherhood is the female counterpart to Fatherhood.

A woman outside the church can have a baby if she is able to. A woman inside the church may or may not be able to have a baby just the same.

A man can be a father in or out of the church, if he is able to.

A woman in the church no matter if she is single, married or widowed cannot have the priesthood.

A boy from age 12 on up can have the priesthood regardless of marital status or parent status.

The priesthood and motherhood are not counterparts.

You seem to have a remarkably shallow understanding or opinion of motherhood--which extends well beyond "having babies." Is it any wonder, then, that you would envy what men have?

I am convinced that, as previously intimated, those who are belly-aching about women not having the priesthood, tend to be women who are unhappy with themselves, particularly as women, and men who are unhappy with themselves as men and prone to male guilt and who still have need of mothering.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

I guess I will ask flat out - for those women and men who believe women should hold the Priesthood, are you at this day one with God?  Does the fullness of the Spirit rest in you, and are you full of light and charity, having the image of Christ engraved upon your countenances?  Are you speaking with the tongue of angels when you say that women should hold the Priesthood?

[wenglund]

Valentinus, on 01 May 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Perhaps you should read Maxine Hank's revolutionary collection of essays (various authors) in Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism.

This is a seminal work, and ought to be more important than the scriptures since Maxine obviously knows more than God about how to run God's church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

My opinion doesn't count, I suppose, as I don't believe the men in charge of the church (any church, for that matter) are any more "enlightened" or in fuller contact with the Lord, than the rest of us.  But, I do know, from my experience as a woman, that men do not give up or share power easily.  Pressure has always had to be applied, before change occurs.

[wenglund]

Libs, on 01 May 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

My opinion doesn't count, I suppose, as I don't believe the men in charge of the church (any church, for that matter) are any more "enlightened" or in fuller contact with the Lord, than the rest of us.

My opinion doesn't count either since I leave it in the capable hands of the Lord to convey to us who it is that may or may not be in fuller contact with him and more enlightened. Others are free to usurp that role unto themselves.

Quote

But, I do know, from my experience as a woman, that men do not give up or share power easily.  Pressure has always had to be applied, before change occurs.

From my experience as a man when confronted by certain would-be and self-appointed changers, their application of pressure may at times consist, metaphorically, of palms being pressed over the eyes causing a change from sight to blindness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 01 May 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Quote

You seem to have a remarkably shallow understanding or opinion of motherhood--which extends well beyond "having babies." Is it any wonder, then, that you would envy what men have?

I am convinced that, as previously intimated, those who are belly-aching about women not having the priesthood, tend to be women who are unhappy with themselves, particularly as women, and men who are unhappy with themselves as men and prone to male guilt and who still have need of mothering.

Quote

I guess I will ask flat out - for those women and men who believe women should hold the Priesthood, are you at this day one with God? Does the fullness of the Spirit rest in you, and are you full of light and charity, having the image of Christ engraved upon your countenances? Are you speaking with the tongue of angels when you say that women should hold the Priesthood?

Quote

This is a seminal work, and ought to be more important than the scriptures since Maxine obviously knows more than God about how to run God's church.

Quote

My opinion doesn't count either since I leave it in the capable hands of the Lord to convey to us who it is that may or may not be in fuller contact with him and more enlightened. Others are free to usurp that role unto themselves.

[divinenature]

mfbukowski, on 01 May 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

See above.   There is nothing preventing YOU from doing this within a few weeks from now- after you are trained and learn the ordinances.

What priesthood will I be ordained to in order to officiate in the temple ordinances?

[divinenature]

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

You seem to have a remarkably shallow understanding or opinion of motherhood--which extends well beyond "having babies." Is it any wonder, then, that you would envy what men have?

I am convinced that, as previously intimated, those who are belly-aching about women not having the priesthood, tend to be women who are unhappy with themselves, particularly as women, and men who are unhappy with themselves as men and prone to male guilt and who still have need of mothering.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You appear not to have actually understood my post. Better luck next time.

[divinenature]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I guess I will ask flat out - for those women and men who believe women should hold the Priesthood, are you at this day one with God?  Does the fullness of the Spirit rest in you, and are you full of light and charity, having the image of Christ engraved upon your countenances?  Are you speaking with the tongue of angels when you say that women should hold the Priesthood?

Natch.

[blackstrap]

God the Father ,introduces Christ as His Beloved Son. Unfathomable,isn't it? And unfair to all women. Now Gaia,on the other hand....

[Log]

Once, a woman whom I was deeply in love with told me how she was abused by family members over a period of years.  As she related her tale, I felt more and more ashamed just for being male.  Towards the end of her account, the thought came out of nowhere - "Christ was male."

From that point onward, I have never felt shame for being male, but only for my own sins.

What is the significance of the fact that Christ was male?

... or, for that matter, the fact that Satan is male?

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[Storm Rider]

We all get hung up on things in life.  There are those who get hung up on being a male or being a female and trying to understand what that means.  The moment someone has an issue with something that is, in their minds, a male thing or a female thing (unless it is gentle humor) my eyes roll back in my head and I immediately look for the door.

It is unquestionably sad that individuals will surrender all their happiness to fight against the dragon that only exists in their own mind.  Too often we all forget that the first step in being a disciple of Christ is to surrender to his will, to lay down all our own issues, and to take up his cross.  That is our only cause worth fighting about and we fight for him with an open hand of friendship extended to all; we do it by loving our neighbor as ourselves; and we do it by sharing his peace with all.  We need to choose the topic of discussions and ignore those petty squabbles that are found in the minds of the lost or those who still want to fight dragons.

Edited by Storm Rider, 02 May 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Senator]

Storm Rider, on 01 May 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

We all get hung up on things in life.  There are those who get hung up on being a male or being a female and trying to understand what that means.  The moment someone has an issue with something that is, in their minds, a male thing or a female thing (unless it is gentle humor) my eyes roll back in my head and I immediately look for the door.

It is unquestionably sad that individuals will surrender all their happiness to fight against the dragon that only exists in their own mind.  Too often we all forget that the first step in being a disciple of Christ is to surrender to his will, to lay down all our own issues, and to talk up his cross.  That is our only cause worth fighting about and we fight for him with an open hand of friendship extended to all; we do it by loving our neighbor as ourselves; and we do it by sharing his peace with all.  We need to choose the topic of discussions and ignore those petty squabbles that are found in the minds of the lost or those who still want to fight dragons.

Is this your response to the OP? Who are you referring too in the "we", "those", "someone", "individuals"? Who are you lecturing against with these ascertions? Certian posters in this thread? The OP herself?

By the way M&G, that's the highest rep point count I recall ever seeing. Well done!

Edited by Senator, 02 May 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[Analytics]

Hi Wade,

Let’s recap.  I suggested that progressive thinkers believe that leadership roles should be filled by the people best suited to fill them, rather than arbitrary qualification standards based on gender.

You responded that this isn’t progressive thinking, but rather is a throw-back to the “inanity of the 70’s” and is something that “eliminates the lines of healthy gender diversity.”  You went on to say that it’s time to stop seeing things this way so that “women can be real women,” so that the sexual attraction men and women feel towards each other can be heightened.

I asked you what you meant by this:  How does allowing the best-suited person for a given leadership role to fill that role “eliminate the lines of healthy gender diversity?”

To this, you responded.

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Actually, for the most part, I have not been able to do those things, and I likely won't during this life. Should I break out the sackcloth and ashes and begin chanting about inequality and unfairness?

All I'm saying is that if you had the desire and full qualifications to do any of those things, it would be wrong for you to be disqualified based soley on your gender.

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Not surprisingly, you got it just backwards (a result of a lack of healthy gender diversity?). Healthy men and women are focused on what they can do, and not on what they can't. If you weren't stuck back in the outdated mindset of 70's, this may have occurred to you.

No doubt the irony was intentional for you to suggest my views are the result of "a lack of a healthy gender diversity," given that I'm the one in a  happy, fulfilling, mature, and attractive heterosexual relationship.

Susan B. Anthony couldn't vote, and she focused on what she couldn't do.  Does that mean she wasn't healthy?

That is a good analogy for my point: people in the modern world are used to seeing gender diversity in professions and leadership roles.  In the modern world, it isn't particularly weird or notable to see a woman doctor, lawyer, CEO, secretary of state, or prime minister.  If a potential convert walks in from the modern world into the LDS world where it is absolutely necessary to be a man in order to be a bishop, Sunday School president, high councilman, etc., he or she is going to find the LDS gender bias quaint.  

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about, but yet presume to put words in my mouth.

In my original post on this thread, I implied that the LDS Church would have a better lineup of bishops if the pool for potential bishops was expanded to include women.  You are the one who went off on how this would eliminate the lines of healthy gender diversity, preclude women from being “real” women, and cause men and women to be less sexually attracted to each other.

I simply asked you to clarify what you are talking about—I certainly wasn’t putting words in your mouth.

Edited by Analytics, 02 May 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[wenglund]

Analytics et. al.,

It would be wrong for me not to express my deep appreciation for you, and those like you over the last many decades, who have championed this cause.

One of the unintended consequences for me that has come out of the ongoing public dialogue over gender issues is that it has enabled me to gain a new perspective and a seemingly more workable insight into and appreciation of the gospel, kind of along the lines of what Stormrider expressed above.

Indirectly, and in a way, it has also helped me to better deal with my learning disabilities and physical handicaps (I was born with a hearing and auditory processing defect, and later in life I have become sight impaired) as well as a number of deep disappointments in my life.

To understand how, let me borrow Paul's analogy of the Church as a body. Metaphorically, as I have witnessed over the years portions of the heart envying the mind and bemoaning that perhaps in this life the heart may never become a mind or have the privileges associated with the mind, it struck me not only how little value was given to the heart, and how too much value was given to the mind, but also that the body isn't designed to have just a mind, and wouldn't work without each part of the body being intent on and happy with doing their respective parts. As Paul suggested, the mind can't rightly say of the heart, I have no need of thee, nor would it make sense for the heart to say, I have need to be the mind. The body doesn't work that way.

By me coming to understand this about the heart, it helps me better accept my seeming roll in life as the colon. It caused me to realize that someone has to deal with all the crap experienced by the body, and since that seems to be my lot in life, I now recognize that even though my lot may not have the glamor and prestige of the mind and heart or eyes and ears, it is no less important, and it is no less important for me to value my own lot and look to taking care of it rather than looking elsewhere and envying other parts of the body and complaining about not having the privileges that may be afforded them. I have come to honor my lot in life as a colon, and to value my contribution to the body.

In short, the gender debates have helped me to understand that the gospel isn't so much about having the priesthood or not, or holding certain leadership offices or not, but rather becoming the best person possible and serving to the best of one's ability in whatever capacity one may be assigned by God through his chosen leaders. My mission isn't to become a Bishop or Stake President or GA or even Relief Society president--though where appropriate, and if called, I would happily serve in those capacities. Rather, it is to assist in whatever way is deemed best to perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, care for those in need, and heal the sick.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pa Pa]

mercyngrace, on 30 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Are women more spiritual, more charitable, smarter than men?

Yes, with the exception to smarter, that is a matter of education and I.Q. Both of which I lack...

[Carborendum]

Are women better than men?  Look at the last two paragraphs and tell me what you think about it.

http://www.lds.org/e...ur young women"

Personally, I know that my wife is light years ahead of me spiritually.  And this isn't a self-depricating, false humility.  Everyone who knows us thinks of us as the LDS stereotype.  I'm very much an intellectual.  She's very spiritual.  There's not a person around her that doesn't think she's the kindest person on earth.  But to extrapolate that to broad generalizations would be unscientific.

We have much of American culture for the past few decades that have marginalized the role of father and degraded men to the point that it is a given that we are scum of the earth.  So, simply as Americans, we are apt to put women on a pedestal (not just so we can look up their dress).

But that same cultural stereotype can be turned on women as well.  Drew Carey once depicted it this way:

"People say that if women ruled the world there wouldn't be any wars.  I don't believe that for a second.  We'd still have wars.  We'd just go to wars for different reasons:"

(Impersonating women's voices on a phone)
"Hi, England.  This is America.  Why are you attacking us?"
"Oh, I think YOU know why!!!"
"Actually, I don't.  Could you tell me so I could apologize?"
"Well, if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you!"

So as we delve into this topic of women vs. men on any scale, we must consider how difficult it will be to screen out our cultural prejudices to come to an objective truth.