Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Scott Lloyd]

grrr.    I'm the polar opposite of Why Me - how could you even think of confusing us?

Aaack!

My apologies to you both! It's the similarity of the screen names composed of two short words that caused my brief and temporary confusion.

I have corrected my post.

[Who Knows]

Question - Who {physically} grants entrance to women into the celestial kingdom? 

A - God

B - Her Husband

Just playin' along...

I don't have the faintest idea. I'm guessing, though, that you think you do.

Oh give me a break. You know who does.

Temple reference deleted. -- Moderator

[selek]

The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

Then give us a clear, definitive LDS source, Scratch/Tomassi/Lisa Tomeii. For all your arguments to the contrary, NOTHING has been cited that could be fairly construed to support your claims.

[Mister Scratch]

(1) As a matter of logic, you can't deduce that conclusion from that premise. The notion that wives should obey their husbands doesn't logically entail the proposition that husbands decide whether or not wives enter the celestial kingdom.

Doesn't "logically entail" from which point of view? I never said the critics' assertion was correct; I said their assumption, given certain things in the Church, is understandable (or at least it ought to be, imo).

[Who Knows]

I said their assumption, given certain things in the Church, is understandable (or at least it ought to be, imo).

In all fairness (trying to score a point here with Pahoran so that he'll provide the source for his claim that he apparantely doesn't have but won't admit) this is why it is a myth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Opinions born of bigotry do not, of themselves, constitute evidence that the bigotry is valid.

Come on, Scott. You and Pahoran and others have been trying to say that critics have somehow yanked this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands out of thin air, or else it was concocted out of spite or malice or some other totally insupportable, conspiracy-theory type baloney. The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

Who can say for certain how these things get perpetuated?

It's the sort of thing someone with a pre-existing pathological hatred of Mormonism would seize upon and embrace without requiring anything in the way of substantiation. And resist being corrected on.

That sort of predisposition goes by a number of descriptors. I have already used one. Another would be prejudice.

[Daniel Peterson]

You and Pahoran and others have been trying to say that critics have somehow yanked this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands out of thin air, or else it was concocted out of spite or malice or some other totally insupportable, conspiracy-theory type baloney.  The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere.  It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

I believe that critics yanked this notion of women being denied entry into the celestial kingdom by their husbands out of thin air, mingled with malice, and that it materialized essentially out of nowhere.

It is utterly and completely bogus, and quite indefensible.

Question - Who {physically} grants entrance to women into the celestial kingdom? 

A - God

B - Her Husband

Just playin' along...

I don't have the faintest idea. I'm guessing, though, that you think you do.

Oh give me a break. You know who does.

I know what you're referring to. I disagree with your interpretation of it, and I do not believe that the notion that men control the eternal destinies of their wives can validly be deduced from it, but I will not discuss it with you.

I repeat, yet again, that I have never heard any active, communicant Mormon, male or female, draw the conclusion from it that you think they might, and that I have never heard any active, communicant Mormon advance the proposition to which you refer.

[Pahoran]

(1) As a matter of logic, you can't deduce that conclusion from that premise.  The notion that wives should obey their husbands doesn't logically entail the proposition that husbands decide whether or not wives enter the celestial kingdom.

Doesn't "logically entail" from which point of view? I never said the critics' assertion was correct; I said their assumption, given certain things in the Church, is understandable (or at least it ought to be, imo).

No it is not, and no it ought not to be.

The proper procedure is for the critics in question to ask us what our doctrine is in that (or any other) area. Had they done so, we would have told them. The fact is that they fabricated this accusation on the slenderest of excuses, and then continued to repeat it despite being corrected.

This is not "understandable" to anyone who does not share their intense bigotry and undeniable anti-Mormon agenda.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mister Scratch]

The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

Then give us a clear, definitive LDS source, Scratch/Tomassi/Lisa Tomeii. For all your arguments to the contrary, NOTHING has been cited that could be fairly construed to support your claims.

I already did, selek:

Here's a few things that might be at the source of this:

---The Church's opposition to the ERA

---No priesthood for women

---The revised "obedience" lines from the endowment ceremony (for my money, this is the most likely candidate for why critics think women need male permission to enter the CK, see below)

---polygamy

---continued polygamous marriages in the temple

---foot-in-mouth moments from the GAs, such as Elder Ballard's "I am an expert on women" speech

---Lessons in Young Women's aimed creating a virgin/whore dialectic within young girls, i.e., "Unless you're pure, no man will want you," complete with crushed rose object lesson, or chewed-up gum, etc.

---Implied statements that a woman really ought to remain in the home, rather than pursuing an education or career

RE: the above, something, imo, needs to be done to combat the impression created by this. It's really not all that difficult to understand why somebody might interpret the obedience oath as meaning that, if a woman does something that ticks off her husband (despite its righteousness), that he can deny her entry into the CK on the basis of her being, in his eyes, "disobedient."

Are you saying that you want citations for each of those points? Okay:

1. For material relating to the ERA, see the other thread on this forum. Or look at the FP pamphlet distributed via the Ensign

2. Cf. Pres. Hinckley's interview with Larry King, for starters.

3. I cited a NY Times article earlier in the thread.

4. D&C 132

5. Cf. the relevant passage in the CHI

6. Cf. Ballard's talk. Input that phrase into the search engine at lds.org

7. I don't have a specific, "official" reference for this one. If you can supply me with a young LDS woman who hasn't either personally or in a second-hand way heard this lesson, I'll gladly retract.

8. Virtually any talk given on motherhood deals with this in some way, shape, or form. Are you really trying to contest the claim that the Brethren view motherhood as a woman's primary role in life?

[Mister Scratch]

The proper procedure is for the critics in question to ask us what our doctrine is in that (or any other) area. Had they done so, we would have told them.

Given the fact that (in my view), this misconception springs principally from something temple-related, there's no way that the critics could expect to receive an open and frank answer. Since much of the material relating to one's entry into the CK is handed out in the temple, there's really no way for critics to get answers, is there? Instead, they've got to rely on what is given to them, stuff which includes the above, which I've already mentioned repeatedly. The assertion re: permission to enter the CK, though false, is coming from a perception about how women are treated in the LDS Church. These are very real and genuine concerns, anchored in history. They weren't simply "invented."

[Who Knows]

I know what you're referring to. I disagree with your interpretation of it, and I do not believe that the notion that men control the eternal destinies of their wives can validly be deduced from it, but I will not discuss it with you.

My interpretation is not that men control the eternal destinies of their wives. Just trying to show how someone could get that idea.

I repeat, yet again, that I have never heard any active, communicant Mormon, male or female, draw the conclusion from it that you think they might, and that I have never heard any active, communicant Mormon advance the proposition to which you refer.

Of course not. If someone's drawing that conclusion, they're not likely to be active anymore.

Why do you dismiss the feelings of the exmos?

[selek]

Are you saying that you want citations for each of those points?

No, Scratch. I am saying that the bevy of sources you listed might fuel the fire for the ignorant, the prejudiced, the bigoted, or the terminally anti-Mormon, but they do not address the central question:

Where is there an authoritative, clear LDS source that says a woman is dependent upon her husband for entry into the celestial kingdom?

Where is there an authoritative, clear LDS source that he can, at his whim, pleasure, or spite deny her entry into the Celestial kingdom as was claimed earlier on these boards.

The trip down the rabbit-hole of your anti-Mormon slant was an entertaining diversion, but a diversion nonetheless.

Can you answer the questions or will you simply post more conventional wisdom/bigotry and claim that your answers speak for themselves?

As Scott pointed out earlier, "Opinions born of bigotry do not, of themselves, constitute evidence that the bigotry is valid."

[sibling]

Sorry, but I'm missing the part where it says that a man needs the Priesthood in order to become his wife's equal. Where was that, again?

D&C 84:21

"And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;"

And from the previous statement:

"Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind"

Perhaps you don't piece these two statements together the same way I do.

I guess I don't. Please explain how these two citations indicate that men are inferior to women without the Priesthood. Are you suggesting that the D&C citation of "men" means "only males"?

[Pahoran]

The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

Then give us a clear, definitive LDS source, Scratch/Tomassi/Lisa Tomeii. For all your arguments to the contrary, NOTHING has been cited that could be fairly construed to support your claims.

I already did, selek:

Scratch,

you are doing a charming little two-step about what you think is the claim in dispute. You seem at this point to be saying that it's some vague notion of women being inferior, but you recently demonstrated that you know exactly what the issue is, thus:

Come on, Scott. You and Pahoran and others have been trying to say that critics have somehow yanked this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands out of thin air, or else it was concocted out of spite or malice or some other totally insupportable, conspiracy-theory type baloney. The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

So, since you and I both know that this is the topic under discussion, let us address your list:

Here's a few things that might be at the source of this:

---The Church's opposition to the ERA

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---No priesthood for women

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---The revised "obedience" lines from the endowment ceremony (for my money, this is the most likely candidate for why critics think women need male permission to enter the CK, see below)

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands." Neither the older version nor the current version supports this.

---polygamy

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---continued polygamous marriages in the temple

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---foot-in-mouth moments from the GAs, such as Elder Ballard's "I am an expert on women" speech

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---Lessons in Young Women's aimed creating a virgin/whore dialectic within young girls, i.e., "Unless you're pure, no man will want you," complete with crushed rose object lesson, or chewed-up gum, etc.

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---Implied statements that a woman really ought to remain in the home, rather than pursuing an education or career

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

And the "education" one is blatantly counterfactual. The Church very explicitly encourages women to pursue education.

RE: the above, something, imo, needs to be done to combat the impression created by this. It's really not all that difficult to understand why somebody might interpret the obedience oath as meaning that, if a woman does something that ticks off her husband (despite its righteousness), that he can deny her entry into the CK on the basis of her being, in his eyes, "disobedient."

Already discussed. This has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

Are you saying that you want citations for each of those points?  Okay:

No. He's saying that he wants citations for "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

Alternatively, you could try providing some reasonable connection between this handful of note-cards and the false claim under discussion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

Sorry, but I'm missing the part where it says that a man needs the Priesthood in order to become his wife's equal. Where was that, again?

D&C 84:21

"And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;"

And from the previous statement:

"Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind"

Perhaps you don't piece these two statements together the same way I do.

I guess I don't. Please explain how these two citations indicate that men are inferior to women without the Priesthood. Are you suggesting that the D&C citation of "men" means "only males"?

Well, if it applied to both men and women, the way I see it, it would negate the nearness to divinity of motherhood unless the priesthood was present. So yes, I think it means "only males."

I guess I will relinquish my belief if you can provide me with a statement that Fatherhood

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's a few things that might be at the source of this:

---The Church's opposition to the ERA

It would be a vast and wild leap to go from opposition to the ERA to the conclusion that women need their husband's permission to enter heaven. Does Phyllis Schafly believe that she needs hubby's permission to be saved?

---No priesthood for women

Do Catholics and Greek Orthodox believe that wives need clearance from husbands for salvation?

---The revised "obedience" lines from the endowment ceremony (for my money, this is the most likely candidate for why critics think women need male permission to enter the CK, see below)

Do evangelical or other Christians who read Ephesians 5 deduce from it that husbands determine whether or not wives reach heaven?

---polygamy

---continued polygamous marriages in the temple

How does plural marriage indicate that women must be approved by men as candidates for salvation?

If plural marriage permits such a deduction, why doesn't monogamous marriage permit the same deduction?

---foot-in-mouth moments from the GAs, such as Elder Ballard's "I am an expert on women" speech

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Elder Ballard really said that, quite seriously and pompously and falsely, and that it was completely silly to say it. So what? I can't see how women would require their husbands' permission to enter heaven whether Elder Ballard is or isn't "an expert on women." What conceivable connection is there between Elder Ballard's expertise on women, or lack thereof, and the notion that women need a man's approval to be saved?

---Lessons in Young Women's aimed creating a virgin/whore dialectic within young girls, i.e., "Unless you're pure, no man will want you," complete with crushed rose object lesson, or chewed-up gum, etc.

A "virgin/whore dialectic"? Someone's rhetorical skills seem to be in overdrive. My wife was just released a couple of weeks ago after many years of going back and forth between Primary and Young Women, and, if she weren't up in Park City at the moment, she would be laughing uproariously at that phrase.

However, even if every Young Women's leader in the Church bulked up every morning for chastity-talks-on-steroids, it would still not have anything to do with the notion that wives can be denied entry into heaven by their husbands.

---Implied statements that a woman really ought to remain in the home, rather than pursuing an education or career.

But that was what essentially everybody believed in the 1950s.

Did Harriet believe that Ozzie would decide her eternal fate? Could Desi Arnaz have barred Lucy from heaven? Was Ruth Cleaver at the mercy of her man?

This is simply silly. There is no connection between such statements and the idea that women cannot enter the celestial kingdom without the permission of their husbands.

[Mister Scratch]

The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

Then give us a clear, definitive LDS source, Scratch/Tomassi/Lisa Tomeii. For all your arguments to the contrary, NOTHING has been cited that could be fairly construed to support your claims.

I already did, selek:

Scratch,

you are doing a charming little two-step about what you think is the claim in dispute. You seem at this point to be saying that it's some vague notion of women being inferior, but you recently demonstrated that you know exactly what the issue is, thus:

Come on, Scott. You and Pahoran and others have been trying to say that critics have somehow yanked this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands out of thin air, or else it was concocted out of spite or malice or some other totally insupportable, conspiracy-theory type baloney. The fact of the matter is that this assumption did not simply materialize out of nowhere. It is derived from real and legitimate facets of LDS culture, doctrine, and practice.

So, since you and I both know that this is the topic under discussion, let us address your list:

Here's a few things that might be at the source of this:

---The Church's opposition to the ERA

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---No priesthood for women

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---The revised "obedience" lines from the endowment ceremony (for my money, this is the most likely candidate for why critics think women need male permission to enter the CK, see below)

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands." Neither the older version nor the current version supports this.

---polygamy

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---continued polygamous marriages in the temple

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---foot-in-mouth moments from the GAs, such as Elder Ballard's "I am an expert on women" speech

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---Lessons in Young Women's aimed creating a virgin/whore dialectic within young girls, i.e., "Unless you're pure, no man will want you," complete with crushed rose object lesson, or chewed-up gum, etc.

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

---Implied statements that a woman really ought to remain in the home, rather than pursuing an education or career

Has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

And the "education" one is blatantly counterfactual. The Church very explicitly encourages women to pursue education.

RE: the above, something, imo, needs to be done to combat the impression created by this. It's really not all that difficult to understand why somebody might interpret the obedience oath as meaning that, if a woman does something that ticks off her husband (despite its righteousness), that he can deny her entry into the CK on the basis of her being, in his eyes, "disobedient."

Already discussed. This has no connection to "this notion of women being denied entry into the CK by their husbands."

Are you saying that you want citations for each of those points?

[Pahoran]

Wait a sec...  You and Professor Peterson just said almost exactly the same thing!  Is one of you actually a sock puppet for the other??? 

You would appear be the expert on that subject. What do you think?

In any case, both of you are missing my point.  My point is that it is conceivable, given the things I've enumerated, why critics might misinterpret the obedience clause from the temple.  Know thine enemy, you know?

I do, well enough to know that critics misinterpret LDS teaching and practice as a matter of policy.

The bottomline is that the Church has provided ammo for critics.  The stuff is there, and it adds up.

Just not to what the anti-Mormons claim.

It helps to create an overall impression of male dominance, and female submission.  This, imo, is where the (false) assertion that women need their husbands' permission comes from.

You are entitled to your opinion, even when it has no basis.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

I've just read not the full talk but a fuller excerpt from that eeeevil and oppressive speech in which Elder Ballard allegedly boasted of being "an expert on women" and, it would seem, preened himself on his superiority, as a male, over the lesser sex. (It's lovingly enshrined at a certain ex-Mormon site, where it is presented for the shudders and outraged hisses of alienated passersby. Some have been known to faint dead away at the mere mention of it.)

Here's the full sentence from which that phrase was extracted: "Perhaps being the father of our five daughters and now the grandfather of 22 granddaughters makes me an expert on the subject of women."

Fairly chills the blood, doesn't it? Simply horrible.

I'm betting that the speech as a whole is even less threatening.

Moral: Never, ever, presume that a purportedly beastly speech from a modern Church leader really was monstrous merely because some rather bitter ex-Mormon says so. Read it and see for yourself.

[Daniel Peterson]

It helps to create an overall impression of male dominance, and female submission.  This, imo, is where the (false) assertion that women need their husbands' permission comes from.

But even if we did preach total male dominance and complete female submission, which we don't, nobody could legitimately conclude from this that women need their husbands' permission to enter heaven.

Males are dominant and females are subservient in all or virtually all forms of Islam. But Allah is the judge of both men and women on the Day of Judgment. Not husbands.

[sibling]

Never mind.

[William the Conqueror]

It helps to create an overall impression of male dominance, and female submission.

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel,

What I read on a Fair thread sometime back was an LDS lady, married, who said her husband would have to accept her as a wife (in the next life) for her to make it to the highest portion of Heaven.  Does that sound right?

No, it doesn't. Not on any level.

[Pahoran]

I've just read not the full talk but a fuller excerpt from that eeeevil and oppressive speech in which Elder Ballard allegedly boasted of being "an expert on women" and, it would seem, preened himself on his superiority, as a male, over the lesser sex.  (It's lovingly enshrined at a certain ex-Mormon site, where it is presented for the shudders and outraged hisses of alienated passersby.  Some have been known to faint dead away at the mere mention of it.)

Here's the full sentence from which that phrase was extracted:  "Perhaps being the father of our five daughters and now the grandfather of 22 granddaughters makes me an expert on the subject of women."

To which the audience no doubt chuckled appreciatively. As they should, since the remark is so obviously humourous.

But of course, it could still be regarded as a "foot-in-mouth moment" in that it gives the terminally unscrupulous something to misrepresent.

Fairly chills the blood, doesn't it?  Simply horrible.

I'm betting that the speech as a whole is even less threatening.

Moral:  Never, ever, presume that a purportedly beastly speech from a modern Church leader really was monstrous merely because some rather bitter ex-Mormon says so.  Read it and see for yourself.

Add-on: and in applying this advice, we should define "modern" in the broadest terms. As in, "a modern Church leader such as Joseph Smith or Brigham Young." Their talks never turn out to be quite as beastly as bitter ex-Mormons claim either.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

To which the audience no doubt chuckled appreciatively.  As they should, since the remark is so obviously humourous.

Precisely.