Counterpoint To Gender Discrimination Claims

[Tacenda]

Cal is simply being modest.

Even the mere possibility of that happening approaches nil.

I've never known Cal to be wrong.

About anything.

Ever.

Some people say we should ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" I say we should ask ourselves, "What would Cal do?" and then act accordingly.

I think Cal is Jesus incarnate.

[Calm]

I think Cal is Jesus incarnate.

Now you are courting lightening strikes even if the sky is relatively clear....I am standing as far away as possible from you two.

[Kenngo1969]

[Kenngo1969]

I think Cal is Jesus incarnate.

We all have that Seed of Divinity within us. Some of us have done a good job of cultivating it, notwithstanding the vicissitudes of mortality, and some of us have a little more work to do than others. But that's why we're here.

[Tacenda]

We all have that Seed of Divinity within us. Some of us have done a good job of cultivating it, notwithstanding the vicissitudes of mortality, and some of us have a little more work to do than others. But that's why we're here.

I'm glad you said this because I was waiting for the lightning to strike.

[DJBrown]

We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that since the Church is true it necessarily is at the cutting edge or even where the Savior necessarily eventually wants the Church to end up. I believe that culture most frequently changes first and then the Church catches up. Unfortunately, whenever a cultural tradition that may have not the slightest connection with the core realities or truths of the Gospel become entrenched there is always somebody ready willing an able to come up with some profound sounding spin to justify why it is thus and so. In my, less than humble opinion, you will see women holding the Priesthood or something very much there unto and serving in the same roles as Bishops and Stake President by at least the end of the collective lifespans of my grandchildren. Somebody is going to come along and say exactly what did the Prophet Joseph mean when he used the word ordained in reference to Emma and what was with all those titles he bestowed on Eliza Snow and then...oops guess this really was more about men getting over themselves than any big gender issue. Just hopefully, we don't get too carried away with declarations about how wonderful the 1950's White Middle-class families were before then

Who knows?

Maybe young men really shouldn't go on missions.

Maybe we should be practicing polygamy.

Maybe the church should perform same-sex temple marriages.

Maybe a woman should be prophet.

This is a dangerous game.

Almost all who go down the road to apostsy begin that path by second-guessing the Lord's servants and prophets.

What you seem to be saying is that those in Lehi's dream who have arrived at the tree whose fruit is most precious should be paying attention to and following those folks from across the river.

Don't mean to be harsh, but there seems to be a growing willingness among LDS to criticize and second-guess the prophets. A quick tour through the numerous LDS commentaries in the blogosphere demonstrates this quite well.

In my opinion, each of us at some point must decide whether we are disciples or lobbyists.

[Stone holm]

Who knows?

Maybe young men really shouldn't go on missions.

Maybe we should be practicing polygamy.

Maybe the church should perform same-sex temple marriages.

Maybe a woman should be prophet.

This is a dangerous game.

Almost all who go down the road to apostsy begin that path by second-guessing the Lord's servants and prophets.

What you seem to be saying is that those in Lehi's dream who have arrived at the tree whose fruit is most precious should be paying attention to and following those folks from across the river.

Don't mean to be harsh, but there seems to be a growing willingness among LDS to criticize and second-guess the prophets. A quick tour through the numerous LDS commentaries in the blogosphere demonstrates this quite well.

In my opinion, each of us at some point must decide whether we are disciples or lobbyists.

Possibly, but look at the extension of the Priesthood. Does anybody really believe that Black Africans were neutrals in the war in heaven? or that it was due to a curse on Cain? No, I don't think any of us believe that and that spin has basically been renounced. What the flip did happen then since Joseph Smith, Jr. ordained some Black Africans? Its pretty clear that the racism amongst the early Saints was pretty much the same as the culture that surrounded them -- even the North was predominantly racist. If the Church wasn't racist then it was going to present a problem in getting converts and with their neighbors -- there was all out war going on in the areas they were travelling through over slavery. So until the Whites could get their collective act together and be willing to accept the Blacks on an equal footing, the Church denied the Priesthood to the Black Africans. President McKay understood the problem, but he also realized that the practice had been in place so long and so much nonsense had been spewed forth as doctrine by so many GAs that it would be presumptious of him to just say no this is wrong -- he required a clear message from on high. President Kimball went through a very traumatic period as he wrestled with the problem which was made more acute by the imminent dedication of the Sao Paulo Brazil Mission and the need to be able to sort out Temple Recommends in a mixed race society. He finally got the message and the Brethern who were not all initially in agreement, got a strong witness of that message and the Church caught up with culture. Women and the Priesthood is another very similar situation. Truth is that in early ancient Christianity, women were frequently prominent leaders in the unorganized community of saints, we do not know for sure whether they were ordained or not -- but some certainly acted that way. But much of the records of that period were destroyed in bonfires by St. Augustine who was heck bent on conforming things to Roman culture and philosophies and in establishing the Roman Church's predominance. So since Western Civilization became male dominant due to Rome so did Christianity. Then we have the Restoration, and it also appears that the women were once again heavily involved and the Prophet Joseph Smith introduces endowments and uses wording and titles that strongly suggest that women hold some kind of Priesthood. But once again culture controls -- now culture is starting to say, okay this gender stuff is really unreasonable and uncharitable and a lot ot other things. And is this being said by some very fine people. So tell me, why doesn't this walk, talk and smell like the same thing that occurred with racism?

[Brian 2.0]

Possibly, but look at the extension of the Priesthood. Does anybody really believe that Black Africans were neutrals in the war in heaven? or that it was due to a curse on Cain? No, I don't think any of us believe that and that spin has basically been renounced. What the flip did happen then since Joseph Smith, Jr. ordained some Black Africans? Its pretty clear that the racism amongst the early Saints was pretty much the same as the culture that surrounded them -- even the North was predominantly racist. If the Church wasn't racist then it was going to present a problem in getting converts and with their neighbors -- there was all out war going on in the areas they were travelling through over slavery. So until the Whites could get their collective act together and be willing to accept the Blacks on an equal footing, the Church denied the Priesthood to the Black Africans. President McKay understood the problem, but he also realized that the practice had been in place so long and so much nonsense had been spewed forth as doctrine by so many GAs that it would be presumptious of him to just say no this is wrong -- he required a clear message from on high. President Kimball went through a very traumatic period as he wrestled with the problem which was made more acute by the imminent dedication of the Sao Paulo Brazil Mission and the need to be able to sort out Temple Recommends in a mixed race society. He finally got the message and the Brethern who were not all initially in agreement, got a strong witness of that message and the Church caught up with culture. Women and the Priesthood is another very similar situation. Truth is that in early ancient Christianity, women were frequently prominent leaders in the unorganized community of saints, we do not know for sure whether they were ordained or not -- but some certainly acted that way. But much of the records of that period were destroyed in bonfires by St. Augustine who was heck bent on conforming things to Roman culture and philosophies and in establishing the Roman Church's predominance. So since Western Civilization became male dominant due to Rome so did Christianity. Then we have the Restoration, and it also appears that the women were once again heavily involved and the Prophet Joseph Smith introduces endowments and uses wording and titles that strongly suggest that women hold some kind of Priesthood. But once again culture controls -- now culture is starting to say, okay this gender stuff is really unreasonable and uncharitable and a lot ot other things. And is this being said by some very fine people. So tell me, why doesn't this walk, talk and smell like the same thing that occurred with racism?

Careful Stone, the mods have VERY STRICT guidelines on talking about the priesthood ban, and there is a no tolerance position on speculating as to why it happened. You probably didn't see or weren't here when they stopped a good number of threads for this reason. Hate to see this thread go too.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Almost all who go down the road to apostsy begin that path by second-guessing the Lord's servants and prophets.

What you seem to be saying is that those in Lehi's dream who have arrived at the tree whose fruit is most precious should be paying attention to and following those folks from across the river.

Don't mean to be harsh, but there seems to be a growing willingness among LDS to criticize and second-guess the prophets. A quick tour through the numerous LDS commentaries in the blogosphere demonstrates this quite well.

In my opinion, each of us at some point must decide whether we are disciples or lobbyists.

There is a tension between what you say (and it is said by many) and the idea of "don't take the prophets word for it, use your own heart and mind and get revelation on it yourself."

What are we to make of someone who does the later and honest feels that church's current policies on gays or females are simply policies instituted by good men, but men with biases, and that hopefully those policies will be changed someday.

Do we say, "your personal revelation is incorrect because it doesn't jive with what the church currently states?"

I don't like the idea of, "Go find out and get revelation for yourself... but if your revelation doesn't line up with the brethren, then it's not true revelation from God so keep trying."

Edited March 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[williamsmith]

I remember back when I was younger, more liberal and more ignorant of the way's of God and the Lord's Church when I too thought Priesthood restrictions on Women or the African race were actually discrimination and racism.

I thank the Lord God I'm not that ignorant and spiritually lacking in discernment anymore.

Edited March 15, 2013 by williamsmith

[Brian 2.0]

I remember back when I was younger, more liberal and more ignorant of the way's of God and the Lord's Church when I too thought Priesthood restrictions on Women or the African race were actually discrimination and racism.

I thank the Lord God I'm not that ignorant and spiritually lacking in discernment anymore.

Thanks for the reply William! Very informative and not an ounce of condescension. I tip my cap to you.

Thanks for moving the discussion forward.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[williamsmith]

Thanks for the reply William! Very informative and not an ounce of condescension. I tip my cap to you.

Thanks for moving the discussion forward.

I least I was speaking in "general" and not personally attacking and being personally "condescending" as you just did.

I simply relayed my own experience. I was ignorant and I was spiritually lacking in discernment of the things of God and Light.

Sorry if my experience and life doesn't make you personally happy.

The only thing that doesn't move the conversation forward is your thought terminating need to belittle someone else's life experience and perspective. Why are you afraid to consider and discuss the possibility that there might be more to understand in both knowledge and light?

Anyway, please move on from "me" and discuss the issue thank you. No need for further comment about "me".

Edited March 16, 2013 by williamsmith

[Stone holm]

Interesting William, I guess I travelled a different route in the opposite direction. BTW I hope I was not misunderstood. I am not suggesting that the thing to do right now is for the Church to run out and start ordaining women. What I was saying is that the Church does not lead culture, some may think it does, but I see no evidence for that. Our Church like most Churches after they are established almost always have strong conservative elements. I mean conservative in the classical sense meaning they are resistant to changing tradition. Traditions evolve over time and are considered time tested and therefore they maintain cohesion over time.

The tradition, however, may outlast the initial reason for its existence. A simple example. It used to be customary on Fast Sunday to send the Aaronic Priesthood out to collect the Fast Offerings. Since they were out performing that function, they were not in Church available to bless and pass the Sacrament. As a result, the MP handled those duties on that Sunday. However most Wards ceased the practice of sending the AP out to collect the FO . Yet the tradition of having the MP handle the Sacrament on that Sunday lingered in many Wards. Conservative thinking would tend to maintain the tradition after the reason had disappeared and might in some cases invent new reasons for maintaining the tradition. But over time it is likely that the tradition would lapse.

If therefore you abruptly change a tradition, you may give offense to a multitude. Now what I have just described is a relatively minor tradition and it really threatens no ones place in society. Cultural traditions, however, are not minor and a change in those traditions may well affect someone's place in society. In such instances, you will not normally see an established Church out in the forefront leading or pushing for change, in fact you may expect that it will lag somewhat behind and let other forces do the work. The Lord may actually be out there influencing matters who knows.

If the culture is moving where The Lord wants it to eventually go, when the culture gets to a certain point then The Lord will nudge his Prophets in that direction and the tradition falls away. It isn't that The Lord has changed it's just that the his people are now ready to step up. We unfortunately sometimes get a bit arrogant in our beliefs because we belong to the true Church so we think, well our traditions therefore are all superior and if you don't agree with those traditions well then you must be one of those mocking people in that great and spacious building that Lehi dreamed of. And none of us want to be considered one of those do we.

[williamsmith]

I don't consider doing Fast Offerings a certain way a "doctrine". The act of doing fast offerings is a doctrine, but not how it's done.

Practices change all the time, but doctrines don't change. For examples those of African Lineage only not being given the Priesthood or to do Priesthood related things such as Celestial related Temple ordinances was a practice, not a doctrine, because the Priesthood is given and taken away historically in many way's, mostly according to lineage mind you. The Priesthood itself as a doctrine always existed.

Now, when it comes to women holding the Priesthood, it is possible the Church may make a similar change, but in my view, the Priesthood is closely tied to our "roles" as Man and Women, is a deeper doctrine that is Eternal. I believe God ordained man to have the Priesthood and Woman to have and care for the children. I see the wisdom of this. Although, it's possible their might be "exceptions" to the rule one day, but I don't see and would hope not that there would be a full change, because in my view this is a doctrine of the Church, not simply a practice. The Roles of Man and Woman is unchangeable in my view. That's not discrimination, that's simply different roles. Men cannot and should not even if science allows to have children, and vica versa.

[Stone holm]

I don't consider doing Fast Offerings a certain way a "doctrine". The act of doing fast offerings is a doctrine, but not how it's done.

Practices change all the time, but doctrines don't change. For examples those of African Lineage only not being given the Priesthood or to do Priesthood related things such as Celestial related Temple ordinances was a practice, not a doctrine, because the Priesthood is given and taken away historically in many way's, mostly according to lineage mind you. The Priesthood itself as a doctrine always existed.

Now, when it comes to women holding the Priesthood, it is possible the Church may make a similar change, but in my view, the Priesthood is closely tied to our "roles" as Man and Women, is a deeper doctrine that is Eternal. I believe God ordained man to have the Priesthood and Woman to have and care for the children. I see the wisdom of this. Although, it's possible their might be "exceptions" to the rule one day, but I don't see and would hope not that there would be a full change, because in my view this is a doctrine of the Church, not simply a practice. The Roles of Man and Woman is unchangeable in my view. That's not discrimination, that's simply different roles. Men cannot and should not even if science allows to have children, and vica versa.

You may be right. And I can agree with your reasoning although not necessarily with your conclusion. We are both of course just speculating on what the future may hold. The reason why I can agree with your conclusion is I feel the same way about marriage, not the gender role stereotyping , I think that is already changing, but on gender. I do not believe that the Church will ever accept SSM as an appropriate marriage rite within the Church for there reason that our whole notion of the hereafter revolves around the centrality of exaltation and the so called continuation of the seed. And while procreation may not be a necessary component of a secular family unit, it is an essential factor for eternal marriage. As a result while most Christianity is not faced with a major doctrinal challenge in the case of SSM since they do not even believe in the continuation of the family let alone procreation after this life, Mormons on the other hand do. (I don't see the same significance in the gender assignment of roles or leadership assignments , however, that you do -- but I am not in position of authority where I would be entitled to inspiration on the matter, mine is just speculation -- yet my gut tells me that I am right and I lack the humility to deny my gut instincts.)

[Traela]

Does God love His sons less than He does His daughters? In most churches, faithful women far outnumber the men. The LDS church is unusual in that it is one of the few for which men's religiosity is approximately equal with the women's. At a time in history when men are increasingly marginalized, the Church is ensuring that men are always needed, because they have responsibilities that they cannot hand over to the women. I believe that if women hold the Priesthood they will end up with most of the duties, because men will no longer be expected to step up. In addition, I just finished reading The Beginning of Better Days. It left me with the impression that the Relief Society still has a LOT more potential than we realize. When the sisters start to fully appreciate and take advantage of it, it will be clear that the RS is not just an "auxiliary" (I hate that designation), but the Lord's organization for women that is every bit as important and necessary as the Priesthood.

[CV75]

Curious to hear responses on that point.

Which came first, priesthood or gender? And is discrimination based on priesthood a bad thing?

[Nathair/|\]

Which came first, priesthood or gender?

Neither both are eternal.

And is discrimination based on priesthood a bad thing?

I'm not wise enough to answer that.

[CV75]

Neither both are eternal. I'm not wise enough to answer that.

Yes, both are co-eternal. That is why discernment (a spiritual gift), and not discrimination (a survial skill), is how the Church will operate with regards to both priesthood and gender. In this way, priesthood (one kind) co-exists with two genders but with its respective manifestations.

Edited March 16, 2013 by CV75

[Storm Rider]

It seems like power packed words will often engender emotional responses first before any real thought goes into what is being asked. Is discrimination always bad and should all forms of discrimination be condemned as being unhealthy. Is it wrong to note or distinguish a difference between things? Is it unwise or unacceptable to be able to observe differences between things? We discriminate and thankfully so everyday, if not every minute, of our lives. We consistently draw distinctions between different individuals, different foods, different apparel; in almost all that we say, do, think, and choose is based upon our ability to discriminate. The OP is really focused narrowly on when we make distinctions between individuals that have no merit; distinctions that are based solely on partiality. I wish we understood all things at all times and that there were easy answers to all questions. I wish we understood the real differences between men and women. Some of us like to exaggerate the differences and others are just as committed to ignore them. We really focus almost exclusively on individuals that are exceptions to social mores rather than the great majority that reflect the social mores. We have small minorities in both sexes that want to act like the other sex. In their minds their motives and desires should go unquestioned and the vast majority must bend to these groups personal desires. It is amazing to me that so many within the majority are so prepared to entertain these questions and have so little understanding of why not. Most of us just do not enjoy change and we prefer a slow approach. So few "experts" can define the benefits of a family unit with a man and woman at its head; however, these same experts are prepared to through out this family unit because we have small minorities that would prefer to have it different. More importantly, any study or analysis that supports the benefits of a the more traditional family unit is denigrated almost immediately because it does not fit with the objective of meeting the needs, the rights, of the individual. God has never been overly concerned with the wants and desires of humanity. Rather, he has consistently counseled humanity to go a certain way and do certain things. Some of us are adamant that if we do not understand everything that God asks then we will not do it. Others never question and only seek to obey. I suspect that most of us are in-between. I believe there is merit when a man leads his family humbly and is supported and counseled by a loving wife. I believe that God also has chosen to organize the leadership of his people is a specific manner. This does not indicate that woman do not have major roles to play, but it does indicate that they are generally not in roles of presidency for the Church as a whole. Yet, as I say this I think of women in scriptures who were prophetesses, spiritual giants, and exemplars of faith. We are not the Gardener for this life; some are adamant they were meant to be giant oaks. What a sad and ugly world we would have if everyone was a giant oak and there were no flowers, bushes, dogwoods, apples, and the whole host of members of a diversified garden to see and observe. We are not all giant oaks because we are not supposed to all be giant oaks. Some of us know the pleasure of being who we are without the need to envy the role of other members of the humanity's garden.

[DJBrown]

Possibly, but look at the extension of the Priesthood. Does anybody really believe that Black Africans were neutrals in the war in heaven? or that it was due to a curse on Cain? No, I don't think any of us believe that and that spin has basically been renounced. What the flip did happen then since Joseph Smith, Jr. ordained some Black Africans? Its pretty clear that the racism amongst the early Saints was pretty much the same as the culture that surrounded them -- even the North was predominantly racist. If the Church wasn't racist then it was going to present a problem in getting converts and with their neighbors -- there was all out war going on in the areas they were travelling through over slavery. So until the Whites could get their collective act together and be willing to accept the Blacks on an equal footing, the Church denied the Priesthood to the Black Africans. President McKay understood the problem, but he also realized that the practice had been in place so long and so much nonsense had been spewed forth as doctrine by so many GAs that it would be presumptious of him to just say no this is wrong -- he required a clear message from on high. President Kimball went through a very traumatic period as he wrestled with the problem which was made more acute by the imminent dedication of the Sao Paulo Brazil Mission and the need to be able to sort out Temple Recommends in a mixed race society. He finally got the message and the Brethern who were not all initially in agreement, got a strong witness of that message and the Church caught up with culture. Women and the Priesthood is another very similar situation. Truth is that in early ancient Christianity, women were frequently prominent leaders in the unorganized community of saints, we do not know for sure whether they were ordained or not -- but some certainly acted that way. But much of the records of that period were destroyed in bonfires by St. Augustine who was heck bent on conforming things to Roman culture and philosophies and in establishing the Roman Church's predominance. So since Western Civilization became male dominant due to Rome so did Christianity. Then we have the Restoration, and it also appears that the women were once again heavily involved and the Prophet Joseph Smith introduces endowments and uses wording and titles that strongly suggest that women hold some kind of Priesthood. But once again culture controls -- now culture is starting to say, okay this gender stuff is really unreasonable and uncharitable and a lot ot other things. And is this being said by some very fine people. So tell me, why doesn't this walk, talk and smell like the same thing that occurred with racism?

But this opens up the broad path of second-guessing the prophets about any matter a person desires. The core of this thinking is doubt- doubt in the prophets.

Since when has culture been the vehicle through which God leads prophets?

[Stone holm]

But this opens up the broad path of second-guessing the prophets about any matter a person desires. The core of this thinking is doubt- doubt in the prophets.

Since when has culture been the vehicle through which God leads prophets?

Since The Lord God chose the US and especially prepared its culture to allow bringing forth the BOM in this land working with the Founding Fathers and their Enlightenment Ideals to prepare a culture of religious tolerance which would accept new ideas. Then bringing on a period of religious turmoil that would inspire a young boy to seek him out in a sacred grove. Kind of like that. Or did you think He suddenly quit manipulating culture?

[TAO]

Well... to be honest, I don't worry about it. The church works fine as it is, and I don't see any need to fix something that isn't broken, if you know what I mean =p. If the Lord decides to change it, that'll be in his own time and way, and I have no clue when or if that will happen. It doesn't particularly matter considering all the other more important things in life to worry about =).

[DJBrown]

Since The Lord God chose the US and especially prepared its culture to allow bringing forth the BOM in this land working with the Founding Fathers and their Enlightenment Ideals to prepare a culture of religious tolerance which would accept new ideas. Then bringing on a period of religious turmoil that would inspire a young boy to seek him out in a sacred grove. Kind of like that. Or did you think He suddenly quit manipulating culture?

The question was when have the prophets of God ever been behind the culture? There were no prophets alive during the war of independence.

You have it backwards.

[Stone holm]

The question was when have the prophets of God ever been behind the culture? There were no prophets alive during the war of independence.

You have it backwards.

Maybe, but I don't think so it has been a long time since the Church has tried to lead culture and in fact has withdrawn its most serious attempts, namely polygamy and the united order. It now primarily seeks to preserve existing traditional American culture, and only incrementally accepts cultural changes. I am not saying that this is necessarily is bad, as religion frequently serves as a brake against too abrupt social change. We shouldn't feel too shocked about this after all Moses comes down from the Mount with a more complete Gospel Plan and finds the Israelite culture not ready and destroys those plates and goes back up and gets a lesser law.