Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maidservant

This is how long Mormon women have been preaching

Recommended Posts

A book by the Church's history department was published a year ago, and now is announced to be online.  It is a compilation of 54 talks (some with audio) that Mormon women from Emma Hale Smith, forward, have given.  Again, all the compiled talks are now online.

 

At the Pulpit

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The late Isaac Asimov once complained of the inane practice of relegating women to second-class status in society.  His reason was very practical:  He believed that half of all geniuses were women, and that only humans would ignore half of the most important thinkers in society since they couldn't possibly be taken seriously.  Even when it is clear that a woman was first, the mythology must be maintained that it was actually men.  Case in point:  Rosalind Franklin, the discoverer of the DNA double-helix.  Watson & Crick stole it from her and got the Nobel Prize for it, while Rosalind died in obscurity.   Another case in point:  Mother Eve in the Garden.  Her brilliance shows through, while Adam barely gets it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Isaac Asimov was so well know as a sexual assaulter that women at sci-fi and writer conventions would be warned not to get into elevators with him.  I wouldn't use him as an example to promote the value of women.

Some language:

http://www.factfiend.com/isaac-asimov-kind-douchebag/

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:43 AM, Calm said:

Isaac Asimov was so well know as a sexual assaulter that women at sci-fi and writer conventions would be warned not to get into elevators with him.  I wouldn't use him as an example to promote the value of women.

Some language:

http://www.factfiend.com/isaac-asimov-kind-douchebag/

When I am trying to find truth or inspiring ideals then I look at what is said - is it valid or not.  I don't think I have ever begun first to seek out the perfect mortal and then try to find something she or he said that is worthwhile.  This practice of blackballing every human that has done something offensive results in a world of hypocrites.  The truth is that no one is perfect; no one has lived a perfect life regardless of gender, race, or religion.  I will still listen to a hypocrite to determine if what they say is valid, I just would count them as a hypocrite and a laughing stock IF they actually thought they can fool everyone that they have lived perfectly and we should therefore listen to what they have to say. 

Edited by Storm Rider
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

Isaac Asimov was so well know as a sexual assaulter that women at sci-fi and writer conventions would be warned not to get into elevators with him.  I wouldn't use him as an example to promote the value of women.

Some language:

http://www.factfiend.com/isaac-asimov-kind-douchebag/

Thanks.  That is all new to me, and I submitted the claim to snopes.com for evaluation.  Let you know what they say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks.  That is all new to me, and I submitted the claim to snopes.com for evaluation.  Let you know what they say.

Good idea.  When I first heard about it, I did pretty extensive research on it.  There were reputable names repeating it or I wouldn't have shared it.  Will be good to get it doublechecked though.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

When I am trying to find truth or inspiring ideals then I look at what is said - is it valid or not.  I don't think I have ever begun first to seek out the perfect mortal and then try to find something she or he said that is worthwhile.  This practice of blackballing every human that has done something offensive results in a world of hypocrites.  The truth is that no one is perfect; no one has lived a perfect life regardless of gender, race, or religion.  I will still listen to a hypocrite to determine if what they say is valid, I just would not count them as a hypocrite and a laughing stock because they actually think they can fool everyone that they have lived perfectly and we should therefore listen to what they have to say. 

I tend to agree with the Savior on this topic. People with giant beams in their eyes are not great at helping people with their motes. 

It seems clear that the Savior, who gave this advice, did not expect anyone to live perfectly, so from my perspective the whole “no one’s perfect” mantra is irrelevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/12/2018 at 7:52 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The late Isaac Asimov once complained of the inane practice of relegating women to second-class status in society.  His reason was very practical:  He believed that half of all geniuses were women, and that only humans would ignore half of the most important thinkers in society since they couldn't possibly be taken seriously.  Even when it is clear that a woman was first, the mythology must be maintained that it was actually men.  Case in point:  Rosalind Franklin, the discoverer of the DNA double-helix.  Watson & Crick stole it from her and got the Nobel Prize for it, while Rosalind died in obscurity.   Another case in point:  Mother Eve in the Garden.  Her brilliance shows through, while Adam barely gets it.

Now, now, I think you're overdoing it on Adam's cluelessness.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks.  That is all new to me, and I submitted the claim to snopes.com for evaluation.  Let you know what they say.

I've heard that, too, and years and years ago.  Even as an Asimov fan I don't find it unbelievable at all.  He was a good man, otherwise.  I wrote him a letter way back in the 70's, and he answered me personally.  A class act in many ways -- even if he had an issue with boundaries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Now, now, I think you're overdoing it on Adam's cluelessness.

Maybe so, but I am very impressed at Eve's initiative and intuition.  Where would we be without it?  As for me, I would have been as slow on the uptake as Adam.  Without women we are nothing, if not pathetic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I tend to agree with the Savior on this topic. People with giant beams in their eyes are not great at helping people with their motes. 

It seems clear that the Savior, who gave this advice, did not expect anyone to live perfectly, so from my perspective the whole “no one’s perfect” mantra is irrelevant.

I am not sure how you are applying the Savior's parable to this situation on Isaac A.?  Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I was trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure how you are applying the Savior's parable to this situation on Isaac A.?  Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I was trying to say?

I'm addressing the idea, which you seemed to allude to, that Isaac could still teach us about the worth of women even if he's known for sexually harassing them.  I'm sorry I misunderstood.  And in general, i'm addressing the idea that we can't ever bring up people's weaknesses when discussing a public figure because none of us are perfect.  I disagree with that premise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I've heard that, too, and years and years ago.  Even as an Asimov fan I don't find it unbelievable at all.  He was a good man, otherwise.  I wrote him a letter way back in the 70's, and he answered me personally.  A class act in many ways -- even if he had an issue with boundaries.

It would be more accurate if you said-

"A class act in many ways -- even if he sometimes assaulted women."   Personally, i'm not sure how anyone who sometimes assaults women can be called a 'class act' in any way though.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to hear what Eve would have to say.  I can picture every emotion..even anger in her voice.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Without women we are nothing, if not pathetic.

The reverse is true as well.  Each provides balance, motivation, support, insight, etc. for the other...just as having a variety of cultures and individual personalities interacting results in solutions and progress instead of stagnation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

The reverse is true as well.  Each provides balance, motivation, support, insight, etc. for the other...just as having a variety of cultures and individual personalities interacting results in solutions and progress instead of stagnation.

Perhaps so, but I can only see it from my limited male perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I hope you realize that deprecating men ("we are nothing") does little for women save make us wonder why we should put effort into creating relationships with such valueless specimens?

It makes much more sense to want to have a relationship with someone that can bring wondrous things of value to our interaction.

I don't want to be a crutch for a perpetual cripple so he can only dance with me as his partner or a mother to an eternal child who won't grow up without me pushing him every step of the way, forcing him into an unnatural mold just so he is not a waste of space.  Nor do I want to be someone's therapist having to constantly give him pep talks so he feels he can function...especially when it is clearly obvious that he sees himself fully functional when at work or play without a woman around whispering in his ear.

Are men children of God or not?  Are they not his creation as much as women are?  If they are, it is in my opinion insulting the Lord to call his creation, his offspring pathetic or nothing.  It is insulting to men too...and the women (and families and friends) who love them.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I hope you realize that deprecating men ("we are nothing") does little for women save make us wonder why we should put effort into creating relationships with such valueless specimens?

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm addressing the idea, which you seemed to allude to, that Isaac could still teach us about the worth of women even if he's known for sexually harassing them.  I'm sorry I misunderstood.  And in general, i'm addressing the idea that we can't ever bring up people's weaknesses when discussing a public figure because none of us are perfect.  I disagree with that premise.

I think we might be thinking about it differently.  The individual is irrelevant for me.  By that I mean that when I read something that is inspiring, or full of truth, or simply a good thought, I don't really care who said it.  

The point I was making was that there is a benefit to simply appreciating truth wherever it is found.  This is different from discussing the character of public individuals.  Of course, there is a discussion about who is public and who isn't.  If someone writes an article in a newspaper are they public and become open to the scrutiny of the public?  Juxtapose this with an individual holding a political office - I expect many might agree that a politician can have their character fleeced by the public down to its nth degree.  

The great thing is that we can choose for ourselves.  Some of us will have a very high standard and others may have a much looser standard.  I personally don't want to know the private lives of my next door neighbor nor my congressman when it comes to politics.  Give me an individual that is outstanding in their service to the public.  After that, I will turn an eye on the Roosevelts and Kennedys and their private lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2018-03-11 at 9:51 PM, Maidservant said:

A book by the Church's history department was published a year ago, and now is announced to be online.  It is a compilation of 54 talks (some with audio) that Mormon women from Emma Hale Smith, forward, have given.  Again, all the compiled talks are now online.

 

At the Pulpit

My apologies for being the one who took it off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

"individual is irrelevant for me.  By that I mean that when I read something that is inspiring, or full of truth, or simply a good thought, I don't really care who said it.  "

You should care because the source of the meaning of the words is the person who speaks them.....sure, change the meaning if you don't approve, but don't then approve of something that individual had no intent to convey as an insight of this person.

Or Do you just pretend that Asimov's words mean the same as yours when he says something like 'women should be highly valued' and for him that means he values them as sexual targets to pinch and grope.  

As far as Icanremember, he has one highly intelligent woman in his series, Susan Calvin, who never had a normal romantic relation and was iirc treated a good portion of her life as a freak or worse dried up old spinster.  His other women were heroines not in and of themselves but because of how they were able to manipulate men to a great extent.  They were one dimension.  Women were obsessed with caring for their man and then once they had children, often the father was forgotten, useless. The one non-mancentered woman (she became a writer of romance stories), Arcady, was a child, whose mind had been programmed a certain way without choice.  The most advanced female Bliss is the ultimate old, ineffective man's sex toy, protector, nurse, and preprogrammed sex slave in essence.

Asimov had clever plot lines, some profound insight and after decades of reading his books as much as the Bible, I came to realize his view of women has fossilized in grade 5,6, maybe 7, because when I read his stuff at that age his women seemed powerful, exciting, but by the time I got to college I thought it was just culture because those types of onedimensional women .  Then I hear how he treated the women in the world he walked aswell as the world he wrote...so when I heard Asimov say "I value women" I know he doesn't define value in the same way as I do in this case.

does he have other insights into life, sure...I will continue to use his language in the caves quote, I so far find that quote of value as it is generic and philosophical rather than inter relational.

 

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/13/2018 at 6:40 PM, bluebell said:

It would be more accurate if you said-

"A class act in many ways -- even if he sometimes assaulted women."   Personally, i'm not sure how anyone who sometimes assaults women can be called a 'class act' in any way though.  

 

I suppose you're right.  He was a pig.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2018-03-14 at 3:19 AM, Calm said:

My apologies for being the one who took it off topic.

I just got an email from the Church Historian's Press advertising the book.  :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×