My biggest argument against women receiving the priesthood

[semlogo]

(practical argument I mean)

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

CFR.

[Jeff K.]

I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office.

How do you CFR an anecdotal observation semlogo?!?!?

[MorningStar]

The 'tyranny of women'???

So, Heavenly Father isn't at all concerned about the tyranny of men? Their is no inspiration in such sentiments-only the philosophies of men.

Here's another touching quote:

"Here is a wrong idea in your head, an idea

of a woman divorcing her husband. How can she

do this for any offense? The man is not under the

law of marriage to his wife. But the wife is bound

by the law of her husband as long as her husband

liveth. A divorced man is a creature no where

recognized in the scriptures, or in the law of God.

Where did you ever read in the law of God,

or in the holy book, such a false idea? or the least

illusion to the righteousness of such a thing on any

account whatever?

How can property put away its owner?"

Super touching. So basically a woman just has to put up with any and all crap because she is "property" and doesn't sound like she has much more value than a cow.

I think we don't know why women don't hold the priesthood, but it definitely has nothing to do with women being property or tyrannical.

[MorningStar]

Oh, and this lovely gem:

"But suppose a married man entice a maid,

shall not the wife be entitled to a bill of divorce

against him? This is not an offense against his

wife, neither is it against the maid, but altogether

in the maid's favor.

It is not against the wife, for the man is not

under the law of marriage to his wife in any sense

whatever, neither can he be put under the law of

the woman without disorganizing the whole

system of the law of God and of righteousness.

If he has addressed the maid without the

father's consent, it is against the father, for which

the law of God expressly provides. And the wife

has no concern nor control in this matter."

WOW. If a man commits adultery, he hasn't wronged his wife? He only wronged the father of the mistress? This whole pamphlet sickens me. Then it makes this comparision:

"The wife cannot put away the husband for

any cause. As well might a servant put away his

master, or a child his father."

So a wife is like a servant or a child. Nice.

[ELF1024]

Here's another touching quote:

"Here is a wrong idea in your head, an idea

of a woman divorcing her husband. How can she

do this for any offense? The man is not under the

law of marriage to his wife. But the wife is bound

by the law of her husband as long as her husband

liveth. A divorced man is a creature no where

recognized in the scriptures, or in the law of God.

Where did you ever read in the law of God,

or in the holy book, such a false idea? or the least

illusion to the righteousness of such a thing on any

account whatever?

How can property put away its owner?"

Super touching. So basically a woman just has to put up with any and all crap because she is "property" and doesn't sound like she has much more value than a cow.

I think we don't know why women don't hold the priesthood, but it definitely has nothing to do with women being property or tyrannical.

Or this Better Quote....

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but ^afew are chosen.

41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile

[David T]

Awesome, nicolasconnault. I agree.

For the record, my previous thread was not about criticizing the leaders or the policy. It was more along your lines of 'Making Stuff Up Is Silly, Unfounded, And Even Dangerous'.

Haven't you noticed how many members try to justify the restriction of priesthood from women? And how many others try to criticise it? Few simply say "This is the way it is at the moment, the prophets are aware of it and would change it if it was the will of the Lord. I don't need to find a rationale for it, as there may indeed be none except that the Lord wants us to learn to trust his prophets, which, by proxy, means to trust Him."

What I'm saying is that there may be no doctrinal explanation for why women do not currently hold the priesthood. Believing that there is could be dangerous, because it could lead to disbelief and apostasy when/if the priesthood is eventually given to women, thus invalidating all the doctrinal reasons that members had to explain the restriction.

Let me share a parallel experience. You may have noticed that the two sacramental prayers differ in a few points. The prayer on the bread mentions keeping the commandments, and being willing to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, while the blessing on the water doesn't. When I shared this with the Gospel Essentials class, I told them that there was probably no doctrinal explanation behind the difference, that it was likely just to avoid unnecessary repetition. However, the missionaries who were teaching the class were determined to find a doctrinal explanation for that difference, even though they had never before noticed the discrepancy. They started waffling on about the bread representing the body, which was linked to keeping the commandments etc... It was the most nebulous doctrinal exposition I had ever heard, it was confusing, and obviously completely fabricated on-the-spot in order not to appear ignorant. It achieved the opposite effect, however.

Any member who constructs his own doctrine and uses it as a foundation for religious observance runs the risk of falling apart when that foundation is washed away in the light of new revelation. People get offended when they learn about the actual process of translation of the Book of Mormon, if they had built a belief system on inaccurate facts.

This is why I always focus on the basic principles of the gospel, emphasising that they are the real "deep doctrine", the real "meat" of the gospel, and that by building upon them, we have a sure foundation. We don't need to invent doctrine in order to justify our beliefs or practices. We can simply believe because we have faith in what God has currently revealed, knowing that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

[Deborah]

But, I am also aware that, overall, the Peace Maker is inspired.

You can't be serious. Anyone who knows anything about Joseph would know he held women in highest regard and would not put out such tripe.

[semlogo]

How do you CFR an anecdotal observation semlogo?!?!?

"The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman."

Surely if this is true he can provide evidence to back up his assertion. Personally I think it comes down to misogyny. Don't you agree?

[ELF1024]

"The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman."

Surely if this is true he can provide evidence to back up his assertion. Personally I think it comes down to misogyny. Don't you agree?

he must know my ex-wife.... (drum shot)

(and yes I know... -1)

[mercyngrace]

Have you ever read the 1842 Nauvoo "Peace Maker" pamphlet by Udney Hay Jacob? It expounds some aspects of Bible law on the matter very well.

Richard

No offense intended, Richard, but whenever I read The Peacemaker, I think of The Peacemaker...

... pointed squarely at the head of Eve and all her daughters.

[Jeff K.]

"The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman."

Surely if this is true he can provide evidence to back up his assertion. Personally I think it comes down to misogyny. Don't you agree?

The only creature as or more likely to exercise unrighteous dominion that a man, is a woman. I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that.

If you take the quote in its context you will note that he qualified his observation as being anecdotal. Of course you are free to take the quote out of context, but that would invalidate anything you had to say....

[caudicus]

Eliza R Snow Smith, Joseph's plural wife, referred to most of her life as "High Priestess, Prophetess (and even) Presidentess Snow"

[semlogo]

If you take the quote in its context you will note that he qualified his observation as being anecdotal. Of course you are free to take the quote out of context, but that would invalidate anything you had to say....

I'm not sure how the context helps explain his claim about women.

"I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that."

Anyway, you didn't comment about the statement being misogynistic. Don't you agree that it is? Perhaps you can overcome your dislike of me long enough to consider agreeing with me on something. Hold your nose.

[Pahoran]

Thank you for that interesting quote, Caudicus. But Mr. Tullidge is hardly an impeccably orthodox source, is he?

I mean, in 1877, when Women of Mormondom was published, he had been a Godbeite for a number of years; and two years later he became a Reorganite.

I mention that just for a little perspective.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

Oh, and this lovely gem:

"But suppose a married man entice a maid,

shall not the wife be entitled to a bill of divorce

against him? This is not an offense against his

wife, neither is it against the maid, but altogether

in the maid's favor.

It is not against the wife, for the man is not

under the law of marriage to his wife in any sense

whatever, neither can he be put under the law of

the woman without disorganizing the whole

system of the law of God and of righteousness.

If he has addressed the maid without the

father's consent, it is against the father, for which

the law of God expressly provides. And the wife

has no concern nor control in this matter."

WOW. If a man commits adultery, he hasn't wronged his wife? He only wronged the father of the mistress? This whole pamphlet sickens me. Then it makes this comparision:

"The wife cannot put away the husband for

any cause. As well might a servant put away his

master, or a child his father."

So a wife is like a servant or a child. Nice.

[nicolasconnault]

Gee I'm glad this isn't a feminists' board, otherwise there might be some serious lynching coming up

[Jeff K.]

I'm not sure how the context helps explain his claim about women.

"I see so many LDS men who have no concept of what manhood really is, or what it means to lead. If you think men have a hard time stepping up now, just wait until their wives hold priesthood office. Few things would add more credibility to the old women's-lib argument that "I don't need a man" than that."

Anyway, you didn't comment about the statement being misogynistic. Don't you agree that it is? Perhaps you can overcome your dislike of me long enough to consider agreeing with me on something. Hold your nose.

Again as you note, the statement is anecdotal not a statement of generalized fact. You should realize that before you call for a CFR on anecdotes.

I am merely commenting that you seem to want a CFR regarding anecdotes which is somewhat ridiculous if you think about it.

I have made no comment in either favor or disfavor of the post. My position is relatively clear and always has been, especially with regard to women in leadership positions. I suggest you read my posts more clearly in the future, then you wouldn't ask such silly questions.

[semlogo]

Again as you note, the statement is anecdotal not a statement of generalized fact. You should realize that before you call for a CFR on anecdotes.

I am merely commenting that you seem to want a CFR regarding anecdotes which is somewhat ridiculous if you think about it.

I have made no comment in either favor or disfavor of the post. My position is relatively clear and always has been, especially with regard to women in leadership positions. I suggest you read my posts more clearly in the future, then you wouldn't ask such silly questions.

There wasn't an anecdote related to his statement about women though. Hence the CFR. I assumed he could back it up. Wouldn't like him to back it up?

Believe it or not, I have yet to read every single post you've ever made on this board. I'll be sure to repent and study them religiously from now on.

So, was that a yes on the misogyny question? Don't get me wrong, I'm reading your posts now, but it's going to take some time.

[Jeff K.]

Believe it or not, I have yet to read every single post you've ever made on this board. I'll be sure to repent and study them religiously from now on.

Good, I like to see people who need to improve their understanding of the world endeavor to do so by studying the best sources. It is not that I am the best source you could possibly find, it would seem given your responses that I am the best source you have had access to so far. I appreciate your attempts at self improvement and will endeavor to correct you when you go astray.

There wasn't an anecdote related to his statement about women though. Hence the CFR. I assumed he could back it up. Wouldn't like him to back it up?

Much as you want to get out of it. His post was indeed anecdotal, and you sought a CFR. If you want a CFR for every observation a person makes (versus a conclusion) you will find yourself full of anecdotal references without understanding the difference between observation and stating a factual conclusion.

I don't ask people to back up their observations, I do offer a different observation from time to time. I expect people to back up their conclusions given as factual since I would want to see how they came to them. But to CFR an observation such as "I see the sun as being yellow" is just silly, don't you think so?

[ELF1024]

Gee I'm glad this isn't a feminists' board, otherwise there might be some serious lynching coming up

I'm waiting for the UWM's to come out and start up the Madam DeFarge act...

[MorningStar]

Gee I'm glad this isn't a feminists' board, otherwise there might be some serious lynching coming up

I think it's funny that something called "The Peacemaker" is so offensive and not promoting of peace.