Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Call it what you want. It didn't add anything to the dialogue. It was simply a noisy distraction. Bullying is a broad term that calls on a lot of things. I was bullied in school. I still have scars to prove it. I almost committed suicide over it. So what? Doesn't mean i get exclusive use of the term.It does add to the dialogue in that I was trying to show how it is an empty rhetorical exaggeration. Kind of like comparing the President of the U.S. to Hitler or Mao.No one's bullying the Church into submission anymore than writing about your disapproval of the 'bullies' is bullying. Making demons out of those who disagree with you and making yourself the 'bullied', oppressed victim is naive and that doesn't add to productive dialogue.
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 It does add to the dialogue in that I was trying to show how it is an empty rhetorical exaggeration. Kind of like comparing the President of the U.S. to Hitler or Mao.No one's bullying the Church into submission anymore than writing about your disapproval of the 'bullies' is bullying. Making demons out of those who disagree with you and making yourself the 'bullied', oppressed victim is naive and that doesn't add to productive dialogue.More noise. I obviously disagree. Threatening the Church with protests, departure, and emotional rhetoric, like how all women are in some deep "pain" is bullying. And guess what? I am allowed that opinion. 2
Storm Rider Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 It should scare you guys a bit that you so easily confuse power and authority with being reasonable (look at the titles you gave of God).And yes, fathoming a God who doesn't act reasonably is easier than expected. Here's how: If you believe God truly dictates what is moral and what is not, or what is just and what is not, then you believe in a God who isn't reasonable in at least some aspects, since morality is arbitrary and being arbitrary is to not be rational. Think of Euthyphro's dilemma.No, this is not correct. God has always been quite exact in his declarations of what is moral and what is not. Just because humanity changes what it thinks is moral does not affect what is moral according to God. It is not reasonsable to assume that man has any ability to dictate what is moral to God. 3
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) More noise. I obviously disagree. Threatening the Church with protests, departure, and emotional rhetoric, like how all women are in some deep "pain" is bullying. And guess what? I am allowed that opinion.Of course you are allowed to your opinion, who says you aren't? People who want to stop participating in an institution they think is on the wrong and who voice their opinion can hardly be said to present a "threat" to such an institution. It's just unnecessary and overblown rhetoric. Again, rhetoric like this (as opposed to mention facts of how people actually feel, which you call emotional rhetoric) is in really bad taste and in the same ballgame as comparing Obama to Hitler. Edited August 18, 2012 by Alvino
selek1 Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I also asked for you guys' reasons for why God doesn't allow all women to have the Priesthood as men are allowed to and you haven't offered anything. Nor are we required to.This is a discussion forum, not an interrogation- and certainly not a hostile cross-examination under oath. Okay- I might have to concede the last part (but it's still not under oath).We don't owe you anything, nor are we required to line up and bark at your command. You can have faith that God has, for some reason, good reason to not allow women to have the Priesthood as men do, but, do YOU know what those reasons are or do you have good reason to support women not holding the Priesthood other than "God said so"? This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Priesthood Authority.The Holy Priesthood is not ours to dispense or dispose as we see fit. We have specific limits as to whom we can delegate that authority and under what circumstances. Equally clear are the conditions under which that authority will be revoked- first and foremost among them, acting in contradiction to the pattern and manner set forth.The Priesthood is not ours to do with as we please- nor is it inherent to us. It is delegated under specific conditions and with specific limitations. Every man who acts in a Priesthood capacity is does so as a subordinate- an agent and a deputy to God. A Priesthood Holder is a limited agent- his authority is both express and finite.We do not need to know why God has chosen to withhold the Priesthood Authority from his daughters nor are we entitled to know- it is sufficient to know that he has. 2
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 Of course you are allowed to your opinion, who says you aren't? People who want to stop participating in an institution they think is on the wrong and who voice their opinion can hardly be said to present a "threat" to such an institution. It's just unnecessary and overblown rhetoric. Again, rhetoric like this (as opposed to mention facts of how people actually feel, which you call emotional rhetoric) is in really bad taste and in the same ballgame as comparing Obama to Hitler.Not even in the same ballpark. You live in a world of logical fallacies in which I have no hope of prying you out of. So I must resign and wish you good luck.
selek1 Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 And yes, fathoming a God who doesn't act reasonably is easier than expected. Here's how: If you believe God truly dictates what is moral and what is not, or what is just and what is not, then you believe in a God who isn't reasonable in at least some aspects, since morality is arbitrary and being arbitrary is to not be rational. Think of Euthyphro's dilemma. What a curious definition and worldview you have....Morality is (by definition) arbitrary and therefore not rationale?I should like to see some (non-arbitrary) evidence to support that assertion...
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Perhaps you should read harder. I saw plenty of explanations. I even just provided one.You wrote it while I was typing another comment, sorry about that. Let's check your reason out:The Priesthood ultimately represents Jesus (a male).And the Church is depicted as a bride in Ephesians - that is, a Church run by males is depicted as a female. So?Jesus chose an all male collection of 12 Apostles.They were also 1st Century Jews. Are you trying to imply that the Apostles have to be Jewish? Of course you'll say that's silly. But, why is pointing to one aspect of the Apostles and saying today's have to be as yesterday's, but it is incorrect to point to another one (such as being Jewish) and say today's should be like those in the time of Christ?The female role (that of motherhood) was expressed through Mary.And the male role (that of fatherhood) was expressed through God. Again, so?There is an entire system of patterns that can't just be ignored. Let's assume there is and that God actually wants women to not hold the Priesthood as men do. What makes such a decision reasonable? I was assuming God wanted women to NOT hold the Priesthood as men do, btw, when I asked. But all you're trying to show is that God does want it. What reasons are there other than "God wants it"? Edited August 18, 2012 by Alvino
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Not even in the same ballpark. You live in a world of logical fallacies in which I have no hope of prying you out of. So I must resign and wish you good luck.I meant the Obama-Hitler comparison was the same kind, though, not the same degree. I agree one is much more distasteful than the other one. Just for the record.
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) What a curious definition and worldview you have....Morality is (by definition) arbitrary and therefore not rationale?I should like to see some (non-arbitrary) evidence to support that assertion...That's not what I said. I said that IF morality is arbitrary (as is for those who say God is the maker of morality - again, check Euthyphro's dilemma), then morality isn't reasonable. That's because if something is held arbitrarily, then it is held unreasonably (i.e. without good reason). Since morality, in this case, would be held arbitrarily, then it would be held unreasonably. Edited August 18, 2012 by Alvino
selek1 Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) That's not what I said. I said that IF morality is arbitrary (as is for those who say God is the make of morality - again, check Euthyphro's dilemma), then morality isn't reasonable.This is a false premise, and therefore a false deduction."Reasonable" has a specific definition: rea·son·a·ble/ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/ Adjective: (of a person) Having sound judgment; fair and sensible.Based on good sense: "a reasonable request".Just because God has declared something to be moral (or immoral) based on his own judgement does not automagically mean that his designation is unsound, unfair, or lacking in good sense.That is- frankly- an unreasonable leap for you to make. Edited August 18, 2012 by selek1 1
Glenn101 Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) I would argue that your rebuttal to my rebuttal rests upon an unproven tenet, that the timing of said major shifts in LDS doctrine was purely the result of revelation, and not due to any other forces with regard to public acceptance of the LDS church as a "mainstream" church, societal shifts in mores with regard to race or marriage, and that essentially, the timing of such major shifts was just some highly uncanny coincidence (unrelated to Utah statehood, with regard to polygamy, or acceptance/recognition as a "mainstream" church, with regard to race relations).And of course it is an opinion, that's what this entire board is based upon, opinions. When you can present to me with the facts showing that the 12 did receive revelation regarding these changes in doctrine, then we can begin debating facts (and no, just because a prophet, apostle, etc. states it doesn't mean that it is a fact).I didn't try to make the point that "that the timing of said major shifts in LDS doctrine was purely the result of revelation....." I was merely stating that your assertion is only opinion, with which you seem to agree.The shift in the policy on the practice of polygamy was necessitated by the practical legal situation of the time. That much is evident from the Manifesto. No evidence of societal mores being the driving force. Had not the Supreme Court upheld the laws against polygamy, it is possible that it would still be practiced in the U.S today (although I have my doubts about that).I will not even try to debate the lifting of the priesthood ban. There just are not enough verifiable facts to make a case either way.Glenn Edited August 18, 2012 by Glenn101
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) This is a false premise, and therefore a false deduction."Reasonable" has a specific definition: rea·son·a·ble/ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/ Adjective: (of a person) Having sound judgment; fair and sensible.Based on good sense: "a reasonable request".Just because God has declared something to be moral (or immoral) does not mean that his designation is unsound, unfair, or lacking in good sense.That is- frankly- an unreasonable leap for you to make. I suggest you read up on Euthyphro's dilemma, selek1. Basically, if you say that what God has dictated to be moral is so because it is sound and fair or is not lacking good sense, then the standard of morality is not God but what is good and fair.I'm talking about people who simply say God is the author of morality, not those who say God's decrees are moral because God follows what is sound and fair. The second one has something else outside of God determining what's moral and that's why God follows it, but the first one has God establishing what is moral and what's not in the first place. Edited August 18, 2012 by Alvino
Glenn101 Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 You are confusing some things within the priesthood. FIrst, there is the power of the priesthood, which is granted to women in many ways. They use the priesthood in the temple. Women have and do give blessings when men are not present. However, priesthood, the authority to preside is reserved for men in the Church. I cannot think of any explicit revelation that addresses this single topic, but I do thing there is much that is implied when one reviews teachings about the family unit, the role of man and the role of woman, etc.I am not sure that women use the priesthood in the temple or in giving blessings. There is a difference in acting under the direction of the priesthood and in actally being ordained to the priesthood.Glenn
selek1 Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I suggest you read up on Euthyphro's dilemma, selek1. Actually, I have.Basically, if you say that what God has dictated to be moral is so because it is sound and fair or is not lacking good sense, then the standard of morality is not God but what is good and fair. This is, again, a false dilemma.You are assuming that the two are not compatible- but have offered no evidence to support the alleged incompatibility.If, as one prong of the dilemma assumes, God is the author of morality, then there are only two possibilities:1) God' standard is objectively reasonable, good and fair.2) God's standard is not objectively reasonable, good, and fair.If God is the author of morality, either of these conditions is possible.Your argument assumes that IF God is the author of morality only the latter condition is possible- an assertion not in evidence.
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) You just demonstrated what every critic of how the church handles women throws a fit about.I suspect what he meant by "naive" was not directed toward those who think women are stronger and smarter, but to those who think that predators will respond to women in the same way they do to men no matter how strong and smart the women are. Because it has nothing to do with how strong and smart women actually are, but how they are perceived by predators...who being predators are already screwed up in how they view women. Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Actually, I have. You are assuming that the two are not compatible- but have offered no evidence to support the alleged incompatibility.Not at all. They can very well be compatible, but the point is that one depends on God, the other in what is actually sound and fair. We are talking about what determines morality here.If, as one prong of the dilemma assumes, God is the author of morality, then there are only two possibilities:1) God' standard is objectively reasonable, good and fair.2) God's standard is not objectively reasonable, good, and fair.If God is the author of morality, either of these conditions is possible.Your argument assumes that IF God is the author of morality only the latter condition is possible- an assertion not in evidence.To reiterate, that's not what the dilemma assumes at all. God's decrees may very well end up being reasonable and good and fair. The point, however, is that if God is the sole author, then what's moral doesn't depend on anything else other than God. God could have declared that every country should kill one child every year as an official sacrifice or, on the other hand, God could have declared that killing children for fun is wrong (as is the case). In the former God's decree wouldn't be reasonable and good and fair, and in the latter it would be good and fair and reasonable.... but the point of the dilemma is that these things don't matter IF God is the maker of what's moral.selek1, the question in the dilemma is whether God decides what's good and moral or whether God just follows what's good and moral. That is, whether God's standard is Himself or outside Himself. Is God following what's moral and good or is God the maker of what's moral and good?
why me Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) From the link:"The limited vision of women’s roles that Mormonism imported from post-World War II American culture is unappealing and uninspiring for many young women," Haglund writes in an email. "We must articulate a Mormonism that is less about lifestyle choice and more about spiritual power and a personal relationship with God that can enlighten all the facets of the lives young women choose for themselves."Where is the proof for this generalization? Lifestyle choice is extremely important for young men and for young women in today's global value structure. And the lds church does teach the importance of a spiritual relationship with god. It is in the prayers as heavenly father is address as if writing a letter to him.I don't agree with the blanket statement made above. Edited August 18, 2012 by why me
why me Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Sounds like good changes, to me. Where is the "bullying", in this? Asking for reasonable change is not bullying, that I can see.The assumption is that women have no voice and that young women are in emotional pain. I don't see this at all. Also, the lds church is a worldwide church and women do play active roles in the local churches and in the stake. For example in Russia where women greatly outnumber men. The bullying comes in shades of colors where the lds church needs to make changes in order to be apart of the 21st century.
Libs Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) I don't see this at all.That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have seen it (quite a lot, recently). Plus, I'm not sure the men in the church are always completely aware of what's going on with the women.At any rate, you still haven't shown me any "bullying". That choice of a word is just bizarre, IMO. You have some women in the church (who were identified as feminists) who are making some suggestions, to give women more voice in the church. Sorry, but I just don't see that as "bullying" or even a terrible thing. Seems like it could be a very positive thing. Edited August 18, 2012 by Libs
why me Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Did you read the article, SS? Can those changes really be considered unreasonable? I sure don't think so.I think that the debate should be centered around whether or not the accusations are true. Do Mormon women feel a lack of power in church? Do lds women wish to have the priesthood? Who leads the church? Humans or god? These are issues for debate and discussion.And for young women what is their biggest threat? Certainly not church marginalization. For example, the I think that a bigger threat for young women world wide is from values: appearance, money troubles, addiction, marginalization, poverty and feelings of inadequacy. And what is the church's stance on these issues for young women? I think that the church has it right when we consider what is taught to young women.Here is an interesting article from Finland from where I took the above information. I also think that it is a worldwide problem:http://yle.fi/uutiset/teen_angst_drives_girl_suicides/6228169
why me Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have seen it (quite a lot, recently). Plus, I'm not sure the men in the church are always completely aware of what's going on with the women.I think that the church is very aware what is happening to young women worldwide and what needs to be taught to young ladies and to young men. Have you read my link and questions in my previous post?http://yle.fi/uutiset/teen_angst_drives_girl_suicides/6228169
why me Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 It's easier for everyone if there is a blanket policy for these kinds of things. Some girls will push the boundaries with these kinds of things. No wiggle room makes for a much happier experience for everyone involved.The whole idea of appearance has become very problematic for young women outside the church. As my linked showed, it can lead to suicide. The idea that the church has is basically the correct one: nurture your inner beauty. This applies to young men too.The lds church teaches both sexes to be confident and spiritual in their daily life. Hard to argue with that.
thesometimesaint Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Alvino:Believe me I know exactly what bullying is and it feels like to be bullied.
CASteinman Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 You just demonstrated what every critic of how the church handles women throws a fit about.I see. Are you a woman? I though you were a man.
Recommended Posts