Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[mfbukowski]

I do understand. And from one filthy socialist to another, I'd appreciate it if you'd make a little room in that handbasket you're sitting in.

Hey I usta be a full-fledged communist.

I got better- it's definitely curable! It often happens when you start making some money and start wondering what the government is doing with it and if they have the right to do that.

Edited May 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

Is privilege the right word?

That's the word I think of in this context - if you have something better, I'm all ears.

Is it therefore a privilege for the women to be directed?

As much as it is for the men, I suppose - the Priesthood takes direction from God, and it must direct subject to these limitations:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

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

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Incidentally, socialism, being compulsory in nature, is incompatible with the oath and covenant of the Priesthood.

[mfbukowski]

Is it therefore a privilege for the women to be directed?

That's their decision. When I was a bishop I thought it was a privilege to be directed by my Stake president even though we did not always agree. And he always "won".

That's the way the gospel works. It's not a democracy, its a Theocracy. Yes, sometimes it takes a little while for the "water to get to the end of the row", but it always does.

[divinenature]

What is the harm if women are not ordained? What is the purpose of ordination? It is to ensure that the blessings of heaven are available to all, i.e. that the savlic ordinances can be performed, that the gospel can be preached to others, that the saints can be taught.

The whole purpose of the Priesthood is so that others might be served, not so that we can serve.

Who is not served by women not being ordained? No one.

So, what would be the purpose of ordaining women. As divinenature put it, she wants to be able to bless her children, etc. Well, that's not the purpose of the Priesthood, so she, I, or anyone else can do something . . . it is so that someone else can receive something.

Bemoaning the exclusion of women from the Priesthood reveals a basic misunderstanding of its purpose.

Actually this is not exactly true.

Priesthood office is also used to exercise power and authority, leadership, in the church. Absent priesthood office women have no authority in the church. The priesthood affords much more than simply the opportunity to serve, according to scripture.

D&C 107:10 ^aHigh priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a ^bright to officiate in their own ^cstanding, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, ^dpriest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

What does it mean to officiate in your own standing? Sounds like something for yourself to me.

D&C 107:19 To have the privilege of receiving the ^amysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the ^bheavens opened unto them, to commune with the ^cgeneral assembly and church of the ^dFirstborn, and to enjoy the communion and ^epresence of God the Father, and Jesus the ^fmediator of the new covenant.

Those are some nice privileges that accompany having the priesthood.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church fully embodied this scripture in Galatians?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Senator]

That's the word I think of in this context - if you have something better, I'm all ears.

I'm just wondering what is the privilege of women then?

As much as it is for the men, I suppose - the Priesthood takes direction from God, and it must direct subject to these limitations:

I know, this harkens back to the idea of hierarchal subjegation that has been already hashed out.

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally, socialism, being compulsory in nature, is incompatible with the oath and covenant of the Priesthood.

SHHHH- that's a secret.

Edit: They need to figure that out for themselves.

Edited May 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Libs]

As a general rule I would say Yes, changes in policy, practice and doctrine that affect the Church as a whole will originale with the Lord, and be first communicated to His prophet, notwithstanding what you may have heard in some classroom, one time.

If you can receive confirmation of a revelation given to the Prophet (you are actually supposed to receive personal confirmation, right?), why couldn't you receive that confirmation before hand? God's "time" and timing is not exactly the same as ours.

[Log]

I'm just wondering what is the privilege of women then?

To bear the souls of men. Something which I can know nothing about save it be revealed to me.

[Log]

Those are some nice privileges that accompany having the priesthood.

Women are not excluded from communing with God in his Kingdom while in this life - why don't you make it your goal to do so?

[divinenature]

Women are not excluded from communing with God in his Kingdom while in this life - why don't you make it your goal to do so?

What makes you think I have not or that I have not beheld the Divine?

The fact remains that the LDS church continues to let my DNA, my biology, determine if I can hold office in the priesthood or not. I am banned and barred from certain activities and certain functions within the church because I have girl bits.

[Log]

What makes you think I have not or that I have not beheld the Divine?

Dear sister, the tenor of your posts leads me to believe that you have not yet beheld God on his throne with his Son at his right hand, surrounded by numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing their praises.

If I am mistaken, then please, accept my apologies. You did ask, however. For my part, neither have I seen those things yet.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

What makes you think I have not or that I have not beheld the Divine?

The fact remains that the LDS church continues to let my DNA, my biology, determine if I can hold office in the priesthood or not. I am banned and barred from certain activities and certain functions within the church because I have girl bits.

You are excluded from may biological functions for the same reasons. Does that bother you?

I will never have the incredible blessings of the female initiatories pronounced upon me, which blessings clearly eclipse those for men.

Why can't I have the privilege of those blessings?

[divinenature]

You are excluded from may biological functions for the same reasons. Does that bother you?

I will never have the incredible blessings of the female initiatories pronounced upon me, which blessings clearly eclipse those for men.

Why can't I have the privilege of those blessings?

Because the church is sexist.

There are things that nature dictates and there are things that humans dictate. It is not reasonable to ban women from doing things that men are allowed to do simply because they have different anatomy.

There are a lot of things that men prevented women from doing in years past that we all now roll our eyes at and don't understand. They used to think (not that long ago) that a woman's uterus would fall out if she ran a marathon. Women weren't allowed to own property, vote, drive, have certain jobs and on and on.

Dear sister, the tenor of your posts leads me to believe that you have not yet beheld God on his throne with his Son at his right hand, surrounded by numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing their praises.

If I am mistaken, then please, accept my apologies. You did ask, however. For my part, neither have I seen those things yet.

Dearest Log, I would suggest that if you have not experienced the Divine you do not have the background necessary to discern how someone who has would act or sound. Although, I would suggest that everyone reacts differently. For my part, it has opened my eyes to injustice and made me desire more than ever to speak against them. I believe that is what Christ does.

How does my tenor differ from that of the women's suffrage movement?

When Joseph Smith beheld the Divine what was his tenor? Did he continue to follow the status quo? I think not. (and nope, I am certainly not the same as JS or Christ...just pointing out that they didn't always go along with tradition)

[mfbukowski]

I am biologically excluded from singing tenor.

[wenglund]

The fact remains that the LDS church continues to let my DNA, my biology, determine if I can hold office in the priesthood or not. I am banned and barred from certain activities and certain functions within the church because I have girl bits.

Were you to live up to your screen name, this wouldn't matter to you in the least. But, since you are human, perhaps priesthood envy may be your cross to bear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Log]

Dearest Log, I would suggest that if you have not experienced the Divine you do not have the background necessary to discern how someone who has would act or sound. Although, I would suggest that everyone reacts differently. For my part, it has opened my eyes to injustice and made me desire more than ever to speak against them. I believe that is what Christ does.

It is a good thing I have that background, then. While I am not blind to injustice, I am exceedingly careful to not impinge upon them whom the Lord hath called to tend his flock. I fear that to publicly dishonor the Brethren is to dishonor the Lord who sent them, impeding the great work of Salvation; indeed, if any were to turn away from the saving ordinances and commandments available through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I chose to discredit the Brethren, then my garments would be spotted with their blood.

How does my tenor differ from that of the women's suffrage movement?

It quite possibly is identical.

When Joseph Smith beheld the Divine what was his tenor?

He said, "My Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me."

Did he continue to follow the status quo? I think not.

He did not seek to alter anything save the Lord commanded him, otherwise, he followed the status quo.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Log

[altersteve]

Because the church is sexist.

That's completely false. Sexism involves believing that one gender is "better" than the other, which the Church does not. Latter-day Saints simply believe that God has something else in mind for His daughters.

[blackstrap]

I am biologically excluded from singing tenor.

That may be because you are a basser person.

When Joseph experienced the Divine,he was instructed to start the church anew. It is my hope that all those who experience the Divine ,do the same either figuratively or literally instead of lobbying their current denomination to change its practices willy-nilly.( sort of a pun intended)

[mfbukowski]

That may be because you are a basser person.

When Joseph experienced the Divine,he was instructed to start the church anew. It is my hope that all those who experience the Divine ,do the same either figuratively or literally instead of lobbying their current denomination to change its practices willy-nilly.( sort of a pun intended)

Not only am I a bass person, I once owned a basset hound named Willy Nilly.

Now if that is not a cosmic connection, I don't know what is!

Clearly the church is sopranoist, since they virtually always get the melody. The basses just boom around on the bottom.

(Ok someone- I teed it up- hit it out of the park.....)

[mfbukowski]

That's completely false. Sexism involves believing that one gender is "better" than the other, which the Church does not. Latter-day Saints simply believe that God has something else in mind for His daughters.

Maybe like it takes multiple voices to make harmony?

[wenglund]

I apologize to Wade or anyone else for any insulting comments.

No need to apologize. I take what you said and gave in the spirit of good fun. I don't know about you, but a good zinger every once in awhile helps keep me from taking myself and certain issues too seriously.

This topic is immensely frustrating for me, but that's no excuse to be a jerk. I just wish you guys [inclusive, referring to guys and girls] would try to see where my side is coming from on this without jumping to the conclusion that we must not believe the founding truth claims of the church or whatever.

I think some of us do know where you are coming from. Remember, several of us came of age during the 70's when the feminist movement was in full swing, and may even have climbed to varying degrees onto that bandwagon for a time, if not personally clamoring for the bra and girdle burnings. We have heard it all so to speak, and have seen, in various ways, what it leads to--the unintended and oft unwitting costs as well as benefits.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that experience taught me an acute lesson: that God knows very well what he is doing, and he is in charge of his Church, and so fear not, neither let your hearts be troubled,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Remember, several of us came of age during the 70's when the feminist movement was in full swing, and may even have climbed to varying degrees onto that bandwagon for a time, ....

Guilty as charged.

Meet one of my favorite professors at UCLA- she is one of the kindest people I have ever known. I was at People's Park and on the philosophy action committee at the time- which encouraged the U to hire her.

I guess I have kind of changed, just a tad.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Angela_Davis

Edit:

Ah yes, the bad old days. I wonder what would happen if my new self could talk to my old self--- I think I would not listen to me. Either way....

http://www.billirwinphotography.com/peoples_park.htm

Edited May 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Angela_Davis

I know I'm getting old when I don't need to click on the link to find out who Angela Davis is.

Anyway, Dude, you hung with some pretty radical cats. Please tell me, though, that you didn't sport a frow that you would tease out with a grapefruit cutter only to be scrunched with a headband. LOL

If you think you are were way out there, I once wore a black arm band around Ricks College campus, and my hair hung slightly over the tops of my ears. Oh...and I also owned a pair of platform shoes--burgundy no less. Now that's bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 3, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I know I'm getting old when I don't need to click on the link to find out who Angela Davis is.

Anyway, Dude, you hung with some pretty radical cats. Please tell me, though, that you didn't sport a frow that you would tease out with a grapefruit cutter only to be scrunched with a headband. LOL

If you think you are were way out there, I once wore a black arm band around Ricks College campus, and my hair hung slightly over the tops of my ears. Oh...and I also owned a pair of platform shoes--burgundy no less. Now that's bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL that's great! I had a pair too- and of course the bell bottoms covering them- made me about 3 inches taller! But burgundy!? Man, you win that one!!

Those were more in the disco days as I recall.

I am trying to figure out how to post a pic of me in '72- not exactly a 'fro- more like straight "dirty blonde" hair- the longest it got was about the middle of my back, so I had a pretty good pony tail. If I get a chance to figure it out, I will post it.