Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[sibling]

"I have the priesthood to help me to become her equal."

How does that say he thinks little of himself?

It says he thinks that, without the Priesthood, he is less than she is.

Doesn't it?

I love how people can read negativity into such a profoundly positive statement about the love a man has for his wife.

I love my own wife with all my heart. Frankly, in many ways I consider her a much superior person to me. I would be surprised if your father loves your mother significantly more than I love my wife. Yet I would never suggest that the reason I hold the Priesthood is to give me the possibility of becoming her equal. The idea is simply absurd.

With your half-empty cup, you might want to consider getting a smaller glass.

Okay, thanks. I'll take that under advisement.

What it DOES say is that he thinks SO MUCH about my mother (not that he thinks so little of himself).

So he thinks your mother is sooooooooooooooooo much better than he is that he needs the extra boost of having the Priesthood in order to ever be her equal?

And you think this says nothing at all about how he views himself in specific or men in general?

And of course the Priesthood doesn

[Mister Scratch]

As a former patron in the Provo temple I can confirm the 1990 changes regarding women in the temple are not "Bull caca".

And I confirm that you are wrong, as have several others. Believe whom you will.

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.

It implied no such thing. This is purely your own inference, not the endowment presentation's implication. Quit trying to push off responsibility for your own inability to understand by claiming that's what was presented.

Hoo boy. Real nice---try to correct misunderstanding by suggesting that the other person is stupid or lazy, i.e., "Hey! It's YOUR OWN fault you misunderstood!" Yeah, as if communication only works one way. Face it, sibling: there is something within the LDS Church that is creating the impression among some that women in the Church are second class citizens.

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."

[Pahoran]

Well, Pahoran, I guess I just don't understand your opinion then.

[Doctor Steuss]

sibling,

If I think that I am less of a musician than Bach, does that mean I think little of myself, or does it mean that I realize that there is someone better than I am?

I guess my father and I are just guilty of placing women on pedestals. And I also don

[sibling]

If I think that I am less of a musician than Bach, does that mean I think little of myself, or does it mean that I realize that there is someone better than I am?

Okay, I accept that. So your father was saying that he, personally, was so far below your mother that he needed the Priesthood to even hope to become her equal. Fine, I can accept that. So therefore, may I assume that he was NOT saying that men, as a group, "need" the Priesthood to become "equal" to women, as a group?

And I also don

[Doctor Steuss]

sibling,

"like father like son?"

I guess so.

PS. I think my dad might be in somewhat good company:

The First Presidency has said:

[Pahoran]

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."

Yes, given the vast amount of malice towards the Church that is found in certain quarters, it really isn't difficult to see how someone looking really hard for some excuse to accuse the Church for something might make that unwarranted leap.

You seem unwilling to consider the fact that it is after all possible that the "impression" you describe is not so much "created by" the items you cite, but rather that those items are merely pressed into service of an a priori assumption. Certain it is that the false claim in view does not follow logically from them or any of them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[AdamS]

Pahoran,

You said...

ALL anti-mormon arguments are lame.

Therefore, I am going off of what YOU told people on this board your position was. If you want to correct a misunderstanding that you created, feel free. I would love for you to clarify your position. That is why I asked you the questions which you so incorrectly assumed were a demand. Until at such time that you clarify your position, I will continue to assume and comment to the fact that you think...

ALL anti-mormon arguments are lame.

[Pahoran]

In the last analysis, all anti-Mormon arguments are lame.

What are you referring to?

Still waiting for Pahoran's answer.

And you can keep right on waiting. The question is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, it's your thread, and you brought it up. It's fair of me to ask for documentation.

If you don't have it, you can admit to it - it's ok, i'll understand. Or, you can PM it to me if you don't want to 'pollute' this thread.

You want "documentation" for an overall opinion of an entire body of argument?

All I can say to that is, "oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

It's all in the Name. Men know women Don't.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just curious:

Since, after 13 pages, there has been no meaningful attempt to defend these lame anti-Mormon misconceptions identified by Pahoran, can we conclude that anti-Mormons (at least the ones that frequent this board) are abandoning them?

See most post a couple pages back. I doubt any knowledgable critics who frequent this board has brought these up.

Are you saying no one on this board has ever tried to advance/defend these arguments? Or is it simply that the ones who have done so are not knowledgable? I doubt they would agree with your characterization.

We could ask suem. On this very thread, she tried to sustain the wife-needs-husband's-permission-for-exaltation silliness but never got anywhere with it. Then she resigned from the board in a huff.

How about it? Anybody out there still think there's merit to the "adieu" or the "paid apologists" notions or who don't grasp what is meant by "born at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers"? Are you going to stand for Who Knows saying you are not knowledgable?

[thesometimesaint]

Scratch:

Any one with at least a modicum of knowledge of the Church knows what Bat squeeze your statements are.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You said...

ALL anti-mormon arguments are lame.

Therefore, I am going off of what YOU told people on this board your position was. If you want to correct a misunderstanding that you created, feel free. I would love for you to clarify your position. That is why I asked you the questions which you so incorrectly assumed were a demand. Until at such time that you clarify your position, I will continue to assume and comment to the fact that you think...

ALL anti-mormon arguments are lame.

Adam,

on this subject, you may have the last word in this thread. The above is it. You are not to raise it in this thread again. This is not a request.

It is off-topic. Take it elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sibling]

PS. I think my dad might be in somewhat good company:

The First Presidency has said:

[Mister Scratch]

You seem unwilling to consider the fact that it is after all possible that the "impression" you describe is not so much "created by" the items you cite, but rather that those items are merely pressed into service of an a priori assumption. Certain it is that the false claim in view does not follow logically from them or any of them.

Regards,

Pahoran

A priori to what? Polygamy? Are you totally unaware of / oblivious to the mountain of anti-polygamy material, running the gamut of films, novels, newspaper articles, political cartoons, etc., from the 19th century and early 20th century? The claims made in an alarmed media about young women being "hypnotized" and unethically seduced by duplicitous Mormons? The "impressions" were there practically from the very beginning. My argument all along has been that the Church can do more to correct them.

There is no reading without a text; there is no hearing without a speaker. The (mis)understanding is a two-way street, Pah.

I have no problem considering "the fact that it is after all possible." It's just that, as I see it, the evidence suggests otherwise.

[Scott Lloyd]

You seem unwilling to consider the fact that it is after all possible that the "impression" you describe is not so much "created by" the items you cite, but rather that those items are merely pressed into service of an a priori assumption.

[Mister Scratch]

Scratch:

Any one with at least a modicum of knowledge of the Church knows what Bat squeeze your statements are.

Gotta love that phrase: "Bat squeeze."

Anyhow, you know full well, thesometimesaint, that merely dismissing somebody's evidence without any counterargument or explanation is a pretty poor way of engaging in fair-minded discourse. Please, my friend, make an effort to support your claim via a good, well-crafted argument.

[Who Knows]

Are you saying no one on this board has ever tried to advance/defend these  arguments? Or is it simply that the ones who have done so are not knowledgable? I doubt they would agree with your characterization.

We could ask suem. On this very thread, she tried to sustain the wife-needs-husband's-permission-for-exaltation silliness but never got anywhere with it. Then she resigned from the board in a huff.

I was talking about the informed critics who frequently visit the board.

I should stop speaking for everyone though (not sure why I did in the first place).

How about it? Anybody out there still think there's merit to the "adieu" or the "paid apologists" notions or who don't grasp what is meant by "born at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers"? Are you going to stand for Why Me saying you are not knowledgable?

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

[Daniel Peterson]

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."

(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.

(2) As a matter of simple fact, I repeat that I've never heard anybody in the Church, male or female, draw that conclusion or advocate that proposition. It may, of course, be the case that everybody else believes it but simply goes silent about it when I wander into the room, or that my experience in the Church on every inhabited continent has not been extensive enough for me to encounter a very common Latter-day Saint belief. But I doubt it.

[Doctor Steuss]

PS.  I think my dad might be in somewhat good company:

The First Presidency has said:

[sibling]

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

Who Knows? (And you lament, Why Me?)

I think it's that darn avatar.

[Who Knows]

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

A - God

B - Her Husband

Just playin' along...

[Mister Scratch]

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 Knows]

Who Knows? (And you lament, Why Me?)

Not following you.

edit - ahh, i finally got it. very clever.

I think it's that darn avatar.

What's wrong with my avatar? My avatar is the whole reason I shouldn't be confused with Why Me.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.