Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by juliann

  1. 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

    Are concubines sex slaves?  The definition I have found is "(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives."  It does not have to mean a sex slave.

    Are modern doing just fine without husbands in the modern age.   The trend is about 45% of middle age women will be single by 2030.  When this lot of women get older, not many will have husbands, not many kids and they will get into their retirement years and be pretty lonely.   A lot of western men are doing the passport thing to find women in other countries because they are tired of having to deal with the modern, western women.  The trends do not look good for women in modern life today.  


    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. 6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

    It’s estimated that 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030, according to a study by Morgan Stanley. 

    With the modern dating market, nearly half of women in their “childbearing” years will be without a companion. 


    This is tragic and sad, IMHO. I'm sure there are many, many causes, reasons, both men and women being at least partially responsible.

    It seems correlated to what Isaiah prophesied, to me anyway.  

    Isaiah 4:1

    And in that day aseven women shall take hold of one bman, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy cname, to take away our dreproach.

    Institute Manual (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-13?lang=eng)


    (13-23) Isaiah 4:1. “Take Away Our Reproach”

    Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25–26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (“eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel”) are contrary to the Lord’s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10D&C 132:58–61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.

    - Our cultural hypersensitivity to polygamy seems to have influenced the Manual's content on this verse, no?

    - I could be wrong but I don't believe that women "eating their own bread and wearing their own apparel" is contrary to current Church teachings and doctrine. I'm not aware of this being a problem, is it? Is it contributing to the 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030? I don't know. 

    - Isaiah's dualism, to me, seems to be prophesying about the Babylonian Captivity as well as the latter days trails, wars, tribulations, etc. (why else would Nephi include this chapter and verse?) If my view on his dualism is correct, does that not suggest that Isaiah 4:1 predicts and prophesies plural marriage's return (not only in the recent past, and NOT in the present) but possibly in the future? 


     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? 

  3. 59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    I am just guessing someone mentioned to him that women are wearing yoga pants instead of garments and that is why he talked about them.

    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. 

  4. 2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

    It's interesting- of all the posts I've made, my quoting scripture has got the most blowback.

    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

  5. 17 hours ago, Tacenda said:


    Stumbled across this article about the church being more strict about wearing temple garments. In the SLTrib it mentions members don't make covenants in the temple to wear them. So basically is it just policy and the youth don't wear them day and night like people in my age group (sixties) have? Or not liking to wear them when working out at the gym etc. many youth wear workout type clothes all week and think it's fine to just wear garments on Sundays and at the temple or special occasions. 

    There have been problems while wearing them for women who suffer yeast infections and also urinary tract infections from wearing the garment. I still wear mine at all times except maybe playing certain sports and swimming. 

    So question, should there be a covenant involved or should we assume it's more policy? Or is there a covenant about wearing the garments in the temple? Now I vaguely remember there is something in the temple about wearing them. Is there? Or has there been and then something changed and then soon there was no mentioning it in the temple but maybe will be again since leaders are cracking down on the youth thinking they're free to choose when to. 

    And if no covenants are made in the temple, should it be a choice? Or is policy enough to make one obey despite problems when wearing them.

    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. 

  6. 16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

    I know you're busy, so no need to respond sooner than later, but I think a great start is giving women the RS back like it once was, and the purse strings it once had and the curriculum decisions that it once had. 

    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. 

  7. 11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

    Unaware? The complaints from SOME (not most women) has been going on for many years. Of course they are aware of it. 

    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.

  8. 1 minute ago, JAHS said:

    Unaware? The complaints from SOME (not most women) has been going on for many years. Of course they are aware of it. And you only think or believe the First Presidency is not concerned about it. You don't know that for sure, except for the fact that they are not doing what you want them to do. 

    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.  

  9. 5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

    Understood, but I think patience is still involved. It can take several generations to completely purge discrimination from a population; specially when the people don't recognize it as discrimination.

    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. 

  10. 1 hour ago, Amulek said:

    Well, Sister Dennis is the one who made the statement. Which category do you think she falls under? 


    I agree. But I also think there needs to be some grace for those who say things in a way that can be interpreted in ways they didn't actually intend. 


    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.

  11. 3 hours ago, JAHS said:

     Our time is not God's time. Patience is required. It may be hard for some women but not most of the women who understand their God-given responsibilities in this life. In this life there is equal footing as far as the blessings of the priesthood are concerned. The only difference now is the act of ordination to leadership positions. We are told it is not appropriate to aspire to specific callings in the Church. Isn't that what some of these women are doing?

    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. 

  12. 3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

    If that is what you got out of my post, you obviously weren't reading it for understanding.

    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?

  13. 3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

    This medium absolutely sucks for trying to get across ideas. 

    I am not saying women are inherently better/superior than men, just that the full realization of what it means to be a woman is paramount to the work in these last days. Men are currently lost, I  think anyone can see that.

    The importance and glorious nature of womanhood has traditionally been obscured, first by fallible men and more recently be extreme feminism. Only faithful endowed Latter-day Saints women can receive the true knowledge of the power of a woman and communicate that to others.

    I cannot tell you how offensive this is. Especially if you are a male lecturing women on their lived experience and knowledge.

  14. 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

    What's the difference between aspiring for a calling and aspiring to be an example?

     You seem to never get my points, and I don't get yours.

    You are FOR aspiring to be an example, but NOT aspiring for a calling.

    I aspire to be president of the USA as an example, but not for the job, or what I will do if elected.

    Would such a statement get one elected?

    Difference please?

    I believe firmly in the beliefs of Relief Society, yet I will never be  member.

    I am barred from membership.

    Trust me, I get it all, BUT I constantly consider the merits of arguments.

    That's what PhiloFolks do! ;)

    I am testing arguments by proving their contraries- isn't that what Joseph told us to do?

    Opposition in all things!  Dialectical reasoning!  Socrates. Hegel. Even Marx.!

    I am not sure we will ever be on the same page.


    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.

  • Create New...