Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

juliann

Contributor
  • Posts

    15,419
  • Joined

Everything posted by juliann

  1. So if you are literally given to some dude for whatever he wants you for, you aren't a slave? What would you call it? Like Hagar, she was already a slave. I'm actually chuckling at your belief that being old makes you lonely. What makes you lonely is not having a social circles. And the likely reason these loser men are going overseas is because women here won't have them. Women are single because there aren't attractive options. It may take awhile before a lot of men stop your kind of thinking and realize they are going to have to step it up. They do much worse being single than women do.
  2. Concubines are sex slaves. There is no way to pretty that up. If you think God is commanding that, well.... Polygamy in ancient cultures was a practice of the rich and an accepted part of the culture. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "raising seed" since plural wives have less children per wife than monogamous wives. I continue to be mystified why anyone would try to bring Iron Age practices into modern life where women do just fine without husbands.
  3. I always find it very interesting when polygamy advocates misuse these verses to make them about women rather than a prediction of the sorry state of the men, i.e., themselves.
  4. Ah, we have another polygamy advocate misinterpreting scripture that has nothing to do with today. Seriously? Being childless or unwed is a reproach for women? Live in the real world much? Have you just been biding your time to get to this topic?
  5. This goes back to why they are now being transparent about covenants. It never was a good idea to not let people know what they are promising to do before they have to say yes. They are now doing it all over again. All of my knowledge about garments came from what I was randomly told and temple recommend interviews that could be invasive depending on the man doing it (For many years I was expected to tell two men that I wore my bra over the garment because some Stake Prez decided that was appropriate.) I never saw it as a covenant, just something I was supposed to do as an adjunct to covenants.
  6. I doubt he knows the difference between yoga pants, leggings, and exercise tights, the later two probably the real beef. Because he is singling out younger women in particular, they don't tend to wear garments under tight exercise clothing. One of the things that I found unusual in SLC was so many women wearing exercise clothing when shopping. This seems more of an attempt to control clothing with garments merely being the means. There would be no point in targeting women and yoga pants if it was only about underwear. At least it didn't go into modesty rhetoric but it is still men policing women's bodies (and underwear) which is never a good look.
  7. Maybe we need to ask for a more clear rule about using sacred scripture as a brickbat to throw at people. But, this is what you are actually doing while hiding behind "scripture." BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to: • Spamming or advertising products, publications, or websites • Profanity and vulgarity including offensive avatars or signatures • Insulting language, or statements meant to do nothing more than provoke others • Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons) • Mocking the beliefs of others • Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content) • Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary • Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole • Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements • Spreading malicious gossip • Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards content here or vice versa • Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given • Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing • Pretending to be someone you aren't, or faking membership in a religion to fool others • Posting personal or identifying information about others • Altering members quotes on the board • Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission • Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own • Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning • Contacting anyone who doesn't want to be contacted
  8. Sounds like they are trying to do another round of retrenchment. This is an odd thing to add to Sis. Dennis' talk and I don't appreciate him targeting women. "Yoga pants?" That is insulting.
  9. Nor is there any citation for the King supplying robes for everyone, aside from an article written by some guy who established a church. And he provides no citations at all. So I call bogus on Elder Bednar's claim about wedding garments.
  10. Yes. There is no need for a lot of thinking as to how because it was done before and written about. They held their own conferences, chose the speakers, had an independent magazine. Most of all, as you point out, they managed their own finances and did so well the men stepped in and took it all along with their RS building.
  11. You are right, they are aware of that. But that has nothing to do with knowledge or understanding of the problem. The recent Instragram posts are miles away from the years of complaints by often hostile women. (Not blaming them, they were right to be angry but it's never effective in these situations.) Also, their awareness probably didn't materialize until it hit the papers. I doubt they started reading books and interacting with the complainers after an article. They saw them as troublemakers, as most of us did then, not reliable sources.
  12. You have been on this board long enough to know that it never used to get the blowback from women posters as it does now. Why is that? Especially when we used to be almost stoned for presenting our opinions on women's issues? I have never liked Mormon feminist groups. They were mean and sometimes devious (which is why I think they imploded.) But in order to defend against them, as I used to do, I had to read them. So I did. For years. And then, suddenly, I understood. My turning point was a long discussion of what our daughters were being told. I had a daughter. I couldn't ignore it anymore. So unless these leaders have spent YEARS reading and analyzing this stuff, no, they don't get it. And they never will. It will take younger men who have experienced more of it. I doubt even you think they are studying this, they wouldn't have the time let alone the desire. I'm pretty sure they live in a bit of a bubble, surrounded by people who only want to please and agree with them. I don't fault anyone for this, it is just what happens, especially when we have a problem of hero worshipping leaders in this church.
  13. Women are invisible. All we see is a wall of men. At least they put some women in the stand at GC but the speakers are almost all male. The glass ceiling is firmly in place beginning at the ward level. The RS should be and used to be independent. That would be a good start. It is encouraging that more councils were opened up to women, but anyone who has studied such things knows that women are still routinely silenced through a variety of indirect means (this is not research on the church but in general.) For example, it is now well known that men interrupt women more than other other men, they give women negative feedback more than men, and on and on. Women will react differently depending on the makeup of the council. (And when this stuff happens, it is the most educated women who pick up on it first and go silent.) So merely being seated on a council is meaningless unless you know how it is being managed. The bottom line problem is that women need to be in every deliberative body on every level. There should never be a bunch of men making decisions for women. EVER. And that includes the First Presidency. Most callings can be opened up regardless of ordination. If there needs to be an ordained man, there can be one. Sort of in the same way they wanted a man in the building when only women are present. They do nothing but lend their manliness (or priesthood) in some corner. The fear seems to be over ordination. But that is the last problem and why people need to stay educated on this topic. There is a lot more going on that needs to be done right now. *I should add that a huge problem at top leadership level is that women are booted as officers after 5 years. Anyone who has had a job knows how long it takes to become proficient. So they are cleared out when they reach that level while men are put in for decades. I suspect Sis Dennis is new?
  14. First, I don't accept infallibility. I'm fairly certain that any scholar of the priesthood ban will now say there was no indication it came from God, quite the opposite. Also, what about that horrid gay policy that was first put out. It was changed within months. Were the prophets not listening? Or did they make what they thought was a sound policy. God isn't going to act until he is approached. I do not for one second believe the First Prez is concerned about this, let alone enough to act. I think they are as unaware of how women are feeling about it as some of those on this board. That is why 18,000 comments from women who aren't hostile or critics is so meaningful. There was a horrific defense of the current situation printed in Deseret News recently. It was particularly striking to me because it regurgitated the age old excuses that have long since been refuted. It didn't address any of the problems head on, it merely talked around them and set up strawmen. It should be required reading for anyone who thinks they are defending the status quo.
  15. You are very right about the recognition. But please realize the woman's movement began in the 60s. That is how much patience we have had. How much more will be required...and why, when women are leaving? It needs to be said again and again, the only place a daughter is going to face such institutionalized discrimination is their own church. More and more women aren't willing to put them through that.
  16. And what has changed for us since this? As welcomed as this was as a first step, it merely opened Pandora's Box. In the effort to keep women away from ordination, all it has done is muddy the waters about priesthood. The biggest question now is, what IS priesthood? They keep talking about it but don't define it. But they now have to say women's faith based prayer, etc., is equivalent because that is all they are going to allow us. Then why does anyone need priesthood? What is it, aside from it being paired with ordination and leadership authority through callings that exclude women?
  17. Has anyone here faulted Sis Dennis? She said was is expected of her. If you have talked to any former Officers you would know darn well how constrained they are. I'm grateful she put out the expected narrative because for the first time, women responded in mass. Faithful women. All of the so-called feminist organizations have blown themselves up with their anger and nastiness, they alienated the very women they needed to make change. The calm reasoning of most of those comments is astounding. We have turned a corner. And how pathetic is it that we feel encouraged by the statement leadership would see the comments. It means there was never a way to approach them before, thus the gulf that created this talk. (I do think male leadership now knows enough to make the women officers do the heavy lifting on this.) This is the first time I've been hopeful about change beyond the few changes we get here and there that don't significantly change the bottom line problem.
  18. That is blatantly false. Nobody is even talking about ordination here. There are critical differences without it, most commonly known as discrimination. Go read the Instagram comments for this talk until you get it.
  19. You need to educate yourself. We understand you perfectly. But the understanding stage is over, like years and years ago. It is up to the offender to just stop it. How many women have to tell you this for you to understand?
  20. I cannot tell you how offensive this is. Especially if you are a male lecturing women on their lived experience and knowledge.
  21. As I said previously, if the church manages to lose someone as stalwart and supportive as Archuleta was, it is time to rethink what they are doing. I am very grateful my child isn't gay because I could not encourage them to stay in a community that expects them to lead a loveless life. This has nothing whatsoever to do with chastity because even marriage isn't an option. So pretending the rules are the same for hetero and homo are beyond disengenuous. I just hope he doesn't fall into the exmo angry rabbit hole by misrepresenting our theology. I am disgusted by any LDS who would criticize him because he left an unaccepting church.
  22. That only works when those "tests" haven't been overdone and amply refuted. It is no different than anti-Mormons who never bother to read the arguments put out by academics. You don't need to understand it if that is too difficult. You do need to acknowledge the existence and merits of an argument. This approach sounds no different than the men who insist cat calling is a compliment or telling women to smile is a help to them. That time has passed and it didn't end well for those men.
  23. Having "a say" is far different than making the decision. There has been much needed progress made in giving women more access to things like councils, but how much "say" they have depends entirely how it is run, how many women are on it, and how the women's comments are responded to. We have had lengthy threads on how women are treated and silenced even when present. It's not a church thing, it is universal. I'm not saying this is what always happens but you need to become educated on this if you want to discuss women's experiences. I recommend The Silent Sex which specifically deals with this. One of the authors is at BYU.
×
×
  • Create New...