Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

juliann

Contributor
  • Posts

    15,688
  • Joined

Everything posted by juliann

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. I cannot tell you how offensive this is. Especially if you are a male lecturing women on their lived experience and knowledge.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Interesting considering the seriousness and decorum in the temple….
  17. The bigger problem was the reference to our church giving women more authority than almost all other churches. That is demonstrably false. They need to stop making claims like this and simply own the limitations they place on women or change it. The blow back on this was fierce. I understand the church took down comments from their Instragram blurb. https://www.instagram.com/p/C4oZ-otMOVL/?igsh=bHlpc2xhdnV5b3Nt&fbclid=IwAR0LsR6g08gPKV6JRMJWOH5lDVz7DGY3OF5iMudAnVIjhkx5mfTA0AfE0dQ&img_index=1
  18. Are you comfortable with the Bible being redefined after it was used to justify slavery? Do you object to that redefinition as well? If not, please justify the double standard.
  19. CFR to establish that "reading the words as they are written" is the only valid and correct way to read scripture. CFR establishing that a large part of church membership thinks exactly like you do, a former member. CFR that official church statements are not getting the message out. CFR that Mormonism has a responsibility to hold to inerrancy and infallibility despite their insistence on continuing revelation and restoration. CFR on what a prophet should be.
  20. You have been given a CFR that you blew off and here you are at it again. You have to comply or leave. Posters can be banned for: Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
  21. Well, her association with LDS and her penchant for women's studies will not endear her so there is that. But it isn't HER or the collection of all her theories that will eventually start to seep into scholarly publications, it will be original ideas or approaches that newer scholars will pick up to make their own mark. And of course theologians are the most interested in her, she is doing temple theology.....but they can also be scholars. From Kevin's article, quoting Barker, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/twenty-years-after-paradigms-regained-part-2-responding-to-margaret-barkers-critics-and-why-her-work-should-matter-to-latter-day-saints/ Claremont Graduate School (now University,) school of religion, not only thought this they implemented it. That is why they set up Councils for believers of a variety of faiths, including LDS. It resulted in the Mormon Studies program there. This was in the 90s and it was an exceptional experience to be there to see and experience this process. CGU was very friendly to Mormons while also being one of the most liberal programs out there. I don't get exercised over her methodology because as Kevin quotes another scholar who explains the variation in conclusions from mainstream scholars given the context in which they place their subjects, I think it explains a lot of what is going on with her. I have rarely found books/articles that don't have parts that I disagree with while also using what I do agree with. I don't find this unusual at all. Kevin also quotes Barker's admission that she is open to a charge of going beyond the evidence. She isn't trying to be sneaky.
  22. It's not the topic, it is the approach. Telling Mormons that they are becoming "worldly" and facing retribution is a little inflammatory if not approached carefully. A misogynist scripture might not be the best way... The only way we found to control attackers from the very early days of the board was to demand documentation. That means you will have to carefully define the meaning you are applying to words or clarification if asked. You did get swarmed, however. Some of your later posts were downright cute and I enjoy your sense of humor. Get a feel for the board and its posters. (And I'm not around much usually.)
  23. The phrase in red is what I said in response to you saying it could be referring to wards and stakes. If you look here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 3&version=NIV the chapter heading says, judgment on Jerusalem and Judah. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction by Boadt describes the first 12 chapters of Isaiah as "Oracles against Judah, mostly from Isaiah's early years." p 325. Yes, you or others can read more into a judgment based on contemporary events but that is not what the OT itself is saying or doing. If you notice in the Seely quote, you will note he is blaming pride resulting in a rejection of the Lord, a universal trait, not bangles and worldly ways. Isolating a pericope demonizing women will not be welcomed as an indictment of modern LDS women being "worldly," especially when you have not defined wordly. Until you define your words, this thread will be all over the place. As for "The daughters of Zion can symbolize members of the church who are in the covenant with God, regardless of gender. it can be made to symbolize whatever someone wants which IMO is a sort of apologetic for some misogynist verse. And we are still left with the OT's actual meaning. So why use it all to make a point which can be made in a myriad of other ways with other verses? I really appreciate you using documentation. Thank you.
  24. Um, those verses are in your thread title. The verses you used to demonstrate worldliness that are about haughty women who will have horrid things happen. Yeah, I read it. I was responding to your attempt to read stakes and wards into a verse that is about the ancient world. They wouldn't know wards and stakes from a hole in the ground, let alone write about them.
  25. Read some footnotes on GC talks. Speakers routinely use other translations, although I wouldn't recommend the NIV. We even have a NT translation from a BYU scholar. We can no longer continue to rely solely on a very outdated KJV. We are missing too much and losing contact with the rest of the religious world who don't use it.
×
×
  • Create New...