Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[Calm]

Sorry but all you want to have happen comes at a cost. We see the cost in society today.

 

I don't buy that society has only a limited number of resources for equality and that removing limits from one part of society requires putting limits on the part that has been privileged for eons.

If men can only succeed if they are protected from competition with women, they are not being helped by their privileged status.

But perhaps I have misunderstood your point

[Storm Rider]

"all are alike unto God."

 

All are alike?  Hmm, let's carry your logic out. So are you any different from Jesus, Adam, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Joseph, Joseph?  How alike do you want this to be?  Your logic stretches the meaning to the point that there can be no differences...except that it denies reality. It denies all that is in front of your nose.  

 

If you want to parse scripture you can create a doctrine for itching ears. The problem is that you are then teaching your own doctrines and no God's. How well does that work for people?

[frank_jessop]

Official Statement 29 February 2012

Salt Lake City — The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

[Storm Rider]

Official Statement 29 February 2012

Salt Lake City — The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

 

I like official teachings. Now, what do you think the Church is teaching with that official teaching?

[Buzzard]

Official Statement 29 February 2012

Salt Lake City — The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

All are alike unto God. Not the same as "all are exactly the same". If you have made it to adulthood without noticing that there are some pretty large differences between men and women-and I am not just talking about physical differences-then you are probably beyond my help.

[Truth 101]

I actually used to do baptisms for the dead all the time. My mom would take me and my little brother on what we called "temple trips". I've done baptisms for the dead in eight different temples, from Boise to Las Vegas to SLC. The Mt. Timpanogos temple was my favorite and to this day still is, even though the draper temple is almost an exact copy. But ya, I won't deny that the architecture of temples are beautiful.

[Truth 101]

Makes me remember growing up all the young women that were told the bridal room is the most beautiful room in the temple, even more so than the celestial room. But then a young woman told me the bridal room is just a glorified locker room lol.

[Truth 101]

Another thing also (I'm trying to get to 25 posts so I can start my own threads and edit). These women that want to be ordained... so for myself I don't believe in the mormon god, but for the sake of argument let's pretend for a minute I do. Do these women really think that church leadership is going to change doctrine drastically just because they protest? Cause I'm pretty sure the church leadership won't.

[Truth 101]

I also remember asking my sunday school teacher if there was a heavenly mother and she said yes, but god doesn't talk about her because he wants to protect her and doesn't want people taking her name in vain. That's quite romantic and sweet imo. If I were an omnipotent being I wouldn't want mere mortals cursing the one person I love more than anything, they can curse me if they want, but not my wife.

[jaxenro]

Seriously, if you want to claim that the prevalence of male dominated society/family units in the pre-modern era is evidence of gods intention for society you are going to need to enter the debate about all of the potential origin components you mentioned above. You are welcome to find my theory however you want. I invite you to list your dozen other factors so we can continue the conversation.

 

 

Is it evidence of Gods intent for society? That depends on how you view evolutionary theory, if you ascribe to any form of evolutionary, if you follow a form of guided evolutionary theory, or simply believe in Adam and Eve in a strictly literal biblical interpretation. Since I am new here I will let you set the parameters of the debate.

 

My intent would be to prove that the prevelance (in fact near total acceptance across all cultures and societies developed independantly) of the male dominant family unit was a requirement of the early needs of species survival and childrearing and that each gender is biologically and psychologically designed to further those needs.

 

My next step would be to question whether that model is God given or somehow designed in defiance of Gods plan for mankind.

 

As I have said before, repeatedly, I see neither male or female as superior to the other. I do, however, see them as different and that they have been designed differently to fulfill different roles in life. I know many males and females that ascribe to these theories and yet deny devine intervention or guidance and simply believe that evolutionary forces are responsible.

 

Also when speaking of differing gender roles and capabilities we must remember that we are speaking in averages and individuals are not average. There are individual examples of the species that act outside the norms.

 

As I said I will let you decide the parameters but my preference would be to start from a temporal standpoint and later move to a spiritual one if that is acceptable

[Bikeemikey]

Is it evidence of Gods intent for society? That depends on how you view evolutionary theory, if you ascribe to any form of evolutionary, if you follow a form of guided evolutionary theory, or simply believe in Adam and Eve in a strictly literal biblical interpretation. Since I am new here I will let you set the parameters of the debate.

 

My intent would be to prove that the prevelance (in fact near total acceptance across all cultures and societies developed independantly) of the male dominant family unit was a requirement of the early needs of species survival and childrearing and that each gender is biologically and psychologically designed to further those needs.

 

My next step would be to question whether that model is God given or somehow designed in defiance of Gods plan for mankind.

 

As I have said before, repeatedly, I see neither male or female as superior to the other. I do, however, see them as different and that they have been designed differently to fulfill different roles in life. I know many males and females that ascribe to these theories and yet deny devine intervention or guidance and simply believe that evolutionary forces are responsible.

 

Also when speaking of differing gender roles and capabilities we must remember that we are speaking in averages and individuals are not average. There are individual examples of the species that act outside the norms.

 

As I said I will let you decide the parameters but my preference would be to start from a temporal standpoint and later move to a spiritual one if that is acceptable

 

If you see neither male or female as superior to the other then stop using the term dominant and talk instead about distinct roles. We then do not have a disagreement. I fully agree that conversations of general roles is referring to aggregate norms not specific instances and there will always be specific instances that are different to the average.

 

So far i see no disagreement. 

 

However, the fact that the family was able to operate with different roles is not an example of male dominant society. Examples of male dominant society have to do with the subordination of women's rights to mens. Lack of equal protection. Lack of legal protection. Acceptance of violence against women. I am not arguing that a home with gender specific roles is male dominant. I am saying that a male dominant society is distinct from societies with strong gender roles and we can have one with out the other (though the value of strong gender roles is a different debate I am avoiding at this point). It just so happens that many historic (pre-modern) societies that had strong gender roles also had a separate observable societal norm of male domination.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[jaxenro]

If you see neither male or female as superior to the other then stop using the term dominant and talk instead about distinct roles. We then do not have a disagreement. I fully agree that conversations of general roles is referring to aggregate norms not specific instances and there will always be specific instances that are different to the average.

 

So far i see no disagreement. 

 

However, the fact that the family was able to operate with different roles is not an example of male dominant society. Examples of male dominant society have to do with the subordination of women's rights to mens. Lack of equal protection. Lack of legal protection. Acceptance of violence against women. I am not arguing that a home with gender specific roles is male dominant. I am saying that a male dominant society is distinct from societies with strong gender roles and we can have one with out the other (though the value of strong gender roles is a different debate I am avoiding at this point). It just so happens that many historic (pre-modern) societies that had strong gender roles also had a separate observable societal norm of male domination.

 

Here we would then get into a definition of dominant versus superior/inferior. Male dominance means, to me, male leadership within the family unit, and larger social unit, based on predefined roles that were developed to support early social structure and survival.

 

To me the dominant partner is not superior nor the submissive partner inferior.

 

Posting is such an imperfect medium it is easy to misconstrue the others intent

[Calm]

I would definitely avoid the use of dominance and submission in the conversation. Way too much baggage.

[jaxenro]

Understood but it is a bit hard to discuss a male dominant society without the word dominant. Thought we were all adults here but I am new so I will be guided by you. Obviously I wasn't discussing the modern fantasy relationships or that sub culture but I have spent the last ten years looking more from a Deist and perhaps classical philosophical area. So I will substitute leader for dominant and follower for the other.

To use another crude analogy consider a pride of lions. Each gender within the pride has specific attributes, physical and psychological, that equip them for the role they have. Yes man is a more complex animal than a lion, having both free will and a soul, but I think we far too often dismiss the effect our own biology and physical and psychological underpinnings have on us, our families, and our society. To often lately we on the Western world move forward with massive social changes that defy thousands of years of history in order to gratify the needs of the moment and blithely dismiss any concerns of costs as being on the wrong side of history. Yet we, as a people, have no clue what the long term effects will be and history is best analyzed hundreds of years after the fact. The legacy of WWI and the Versailles treaty are just fully starting to be understood and the impact on some countries still being felt today

[theplains]

This type of action is anything but representative of being faithful or being Christlike. It just appears so prideful and self-centered ... They have an agenda that is conflict with the membership.

 

It sounds like a new Mormon sect is being born.

 

Regards,

Jim

[thatjimguy]

I went to the website and I am confused by it. They say they are not trying to be politcal action in nature, but trying to get into Preisthood Session knowing full well they will not be allowed in seems "stunt-ish" to me. It seems like a political play to make the church look bad to get thier way.

[EllenMaksoud]

I just saw an interview and story about how "Ordain Women" is once again planning to attend the Priesthood Session. Only this time with twice as many women. How many more sessions will we have to endure the supposed "faithful" female members crashing Priesthood before some type of action occurs to deter it?

This objection is sophomoric.

[jaxenro]

Let me pose this question. Part of the thrust here seems to be that females without the priesthood are denied blessings yet we all recognize that this earth is a test. Males are called to "preside" over their families (according to the Proclamation on the Family (1) as far as I know this is still valid). Males will be judged on the "power" they are given and how they exercise it, if they understand the role they are called to, if they change preside into something it was never meant to be.

 

If life is a test then each of us has a role to play in helping others take that test. The role of husband or wife may not be to take the test for their spouse or even help them learn particular answers but provide the setting for that test to occur. Can we really know all the plans of God? Isn't part of the test that we don't always understand what we are being tested on? All of us, at times, are stage settings for others to play against just as they are for us.

 

 

 

(1) By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children

[jaxenro]

"My husband can hold and cuddle his children, he can nurture them and he can cook and clean for them, too"

 

Been thinking about this and wanted to address it in a general way. Yes males can hold, cuddle, nurture, cook, clean, and care for children but they can never be as good mothers as a female can and I don't mean childbirth.

 

On average men simply do not have the instinctive, empathic, ability to comprehend the needs of a non verbal infant to the degree the average female does. I base this on personal observation as a father, grandfather, and friend of many parents. When a baby cries men often try, and sometimes succeed, in figuring out why. We check the diaper to see if they are wet, remember when they were last fed, try to hold and soothe them, but we don't (on average) seem to have that instinctive understanding that many women do that can tell a wet cry from a hungry cry to a I just want to be loved cry. Men and women are not interchangable cogs in a machine but intricate beings each designed for specific roles. Not that each can't substitute for the other in many roles, they often do, but each has unique gender related abilities.

 

Before you automatically dismiss this out of hand discuss this with your female friends and ask them just how clueless many of their husbands are when it comes to understanding the needs of non verbal infants. Personally I am often awe struck at the ability many women instinctively have. For the first year or so of their lives babies are so dependant on their mothers and the ability of mothers to comprehend their babies needs at a deeply emotional level is often just sort of miraculous.

 

Often we dismiss the most miraculous events around us because they are so commonplace. Motherhood, because everyone has or had a mother, is one of these but not one we should ever dismiss or take lightly. The often complete sublimination of the mothers own needs given to care for the child, the ability to develop non verbal means of communication and understanding, the transfer of love and protection to such a fragile soul in such a delicate vessel at such an important time, what position in society or career or accomplishment can compete with such an everyday event in magnitude?

 

Each of us is a soul God has placed on this earth and with mothers he has added the additional burden of nurturing that souls vessel at a time of it's most vulnerbality. What trust and love God showers on mothers to give them that oppourtunity and what pains He must have gone to for them to have these unique abilities to enable them to fulfill this calling

Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro

[Bikeemikey]

Great. Now define preside as a set of actions that we can all agree on. Unlikely is my thinking.

[jaxenro]

"Now define preside as a set of actions that we can all agree on. Unlikely is my thinking."

 

I think like any calling in life, and especially one so important, each of us will be called to account by God for how we individually interpret "preside". That is part of the test. If we use "preside" for selfish reasons, or venal, or dictatorial, don't you think we will be called to account? Part of ife is being given small doses of power to see how we handle it and if we misuse it. For if we are to gain greater power after this life, yet misuse the lesser power here, why will we be trusted then?

[Bikeemikey]

"My husband can hold and cuddle his children, he can nurture them and he can cook and clean for them, too"

 

Been thinking about this and wanted to address it in a general way. Yes males can hold, cuddle, nurture, cook, clean, and care for children but they can never be as good mothers as a female can and I don't mean childbirth.

 

On average men simply do not have the instinctive, empathic, ability to comprehend the needs of a non verbal infant to the degree the average female does. I base this on personal observation as a father, grandfather, and friend of many parents. When a baby cries men often try, and sometimes succeed, in figuring out why. We check the diaper to see if they are wet, remember when they were last fed, try to hold and soothe them, but we don't (on average) seem to have that instinctive understanding that many women do that can tell a wet cry from a hungry cry to a I just want to be loved cry. Men and women are not interchangable cogs in a machine but intricate beings each designed for specific roles. Not that each can't substitute for the other in many roles, they often do, but each has unique gender related abilities.

 

Before you automatically dismiss this out of hand discuss this with your female friends and ask them just how clueless many of their husbands are when it comes to understanding the needs of non verbal infants. Personally I am often awe struck at the ability many women instinctively have. For the first year or so of their lives babies are so dependant on their mothers and the ability of mothers to comprehend their babies needs at a deeply emotional level is often just sort of miraculous.

 

Often we dismiss the most miraculous events around us because they are so commonplace. Motherhood, because everyone has or had a mother, is one of these but not one we should ever dismiss or take lightly. The often complete sublimination of the mothers own needs given to care for the child, the ability to develop non verbal means of communication and understanding, the transfer of love and protection to such a fragile soul in such a delicate vessel at such an important time, what position in society or career or accomplishment can compete with such an everyday event in magnitude?

 

Each of us is a soul God has placed on this earth and with mothers he has added the additional burden of nurturing that souls vessel at a time of it's most vulnerbality. What trust and love God showers on mothers to give them that oppourtunity and what pains He must have gone to for them to have these unique abilities to enable them to fulfill this calling

So what judgement do you asses on a family where the parents have decided for the husband to stay home and the wife to work?

[why me]

I went to the website and I am confused by it. They say they are not trying to be politcal action in nature, but trying to get into Preisthood Session knowing full well they will not be allowed in seems "stunt-ish" to me. It seems like a political play to make the church look bad to get thier way.

They definitely are political. And they are all about action. One tactic that such groups have is to depoliticize their actions. The reason for this is that they know that they may get more of a following by claiming not to be political. And yet, by its very nature feminism is political and all about action.

 

So lets not be fooled.

[jaxenro]

So what judgement do you asses on a family where the parents have decided for the husband to stay home and the wife to work?

Me? None whatsoever. I don't assess judgment on anyone or presume to try to. I express my opinion here, clearly labeled my opinion, and assume others mostly ignore it.

Also I stated I speak of averages not individuals. I assume every individual situation is different and a husband and wife would jointly make a decision

Preside does not mean sole decide ( at least to me )

[Bikeemikey]

Me? None whatsoever. I don't assess judgment on anyone or presume to try to. I express my opinion here, clearly labeled my opinion, and assume others mostly ignore it.

Also I stated I speak of averages not individuals. I assume every individual situation is different and a husband and wife would jointly make a decision

Preside does not mean sole decide ( at least to me )

So what's your opinion on it?