The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[JLHPROF]

I'll shoot your a PM with into on where to find the paper.

 

You make some interesting points but I think the strongest case OW can make is one from LDS Church history where Joseph spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization.  Also, the common practice of women performing ordinances etc....

 

So in that sense, I'm not sure we have to deconstruct Mormonism to find a place for female priesthood, and perhaps even ordination.  I think a sensible case can be made without the need to throw out or minimize some of the teachings you mention.  

 

How many times does this Joseph Smith statement need to be explained?  He was not referring to ordaining women to the lay priesthood.  He was not referring to making them of the same order as Deacons and Elders. 

He was referring to a millennial temple society, wherein the ONLY priesthood office a woman can be ordained to is Queen and Priestess.

And since this still exists there is nothing to "find a place for".

 

Using that statement of Joseph to justify ordaining women in the Church is simply not accurate.

[JLHPROF]

Umm.. Artifical Insemination? I kinda figure that if the Lord wants an egg to suddenly be fertilized and grow a human body, that the Lord can "snap his fingers" and make it happen. I don't think that uh... that either adultery or fornication or even physical contact of any kind is even required.

 

If you can make a Universe, I figure you can do that kinda thing without assuming the form of a swan, a shower of gold, or anything else out of a Greek/Roman myth.

 

Occam's Razor.

The Duck Test.

Brigham Young.

Simple Logic.

 

Seriously, why is it so much easier for some to accept that God fathered Christ through supernatural inseminatory means than to accept that the head of an eternal family had a son the old fashioned way?

[ELF1024]

deleted

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Bart Burk]

Occam's Razor.

The Duck Test.

Brigham Young.

Simple Logic.

 

Seriously, why is it so much easier for some to accept that God fathered Christ through supernatural inseminatory means than to accept that the head of an eternal family had a son the old fashioned way?

Isn't the official Mormon line that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father, but we don't know the mechanics?  Shouldn't the right answer be, "I don't know" regarding this question rather than idle speculation?

[JLHPROF]

 

You're telling me that God, a perfected being, a being that cannot view sin with any degree of latitude... got it on with a mortal...

 

 

No, I'm telling you that a husband fathered a child with his wife.  No sin involved.  Just as we are sealed to our spouses for eternity and promised "eternal increase" if we receive exaltation.  God received his exaltation and has eternal increase with his wife/wives.  So simple.

[JLHPROF]

Isn't the official Mormon line that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father, but we don't know the mechanics?  Shouldn't the right answer be, "I don't know" regarding this question rather than idle speculation?

 

As I stated earlier this is the official line.  But I also stated my own personal beliefs - I agree with Brigham because it makes more sense than the speculations or the "don't knows".

[ELF1024]

No, I'm telling you that a husband fathered a child with his wife.  No sin involved.  Just as we are sealed to our spouses for eternity and promised "eternal increase" if we receive exaltation.  God received his exaltation and has eternal increase with his wife/wives.  So simple.

 

 Don't care for it, seems to make Joseph the biggest rube/cuckold of all time.

[Zakuska]

Ladies, (cal, blue, Juliann)  I can sympathize with you how all the lusty looks effect you. My wife complains all the time how she observes men out in public staring at our daughters.

 

But I think all the women in this thread jumping to the conclusion that the Cowboy was looking at the Woman lustfully and in the wrong is uncalled for.  Remember this was written in the third person,  The narrator is describing what he saw.

 

He saw a woman, dressed to kill, makeup sparkling with her head held high, confidently walking into a building. A bystander happens to give the woman the respect that her confidence commands, removes his hat and opens the door for her. Through her experience and world view she reacts. We are left to interpret why she reacts the way she did. Then the cowboy, seeing that his respectful gesture has been taken with scorn and rejected. Simply, lets the door slip from his fingers because he sees she has interpreted his gesture in the worst possible way.

 

The way I interpret part of this womans world view would be, she seems to be a lady-product-for-earrings wearing Uber-Feminist with pink shoes and her reaction definatly wasn't that of a Lady.

 

But enough about the poem.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

 Don't care for it, seems to make Joseph the biggest rube/cuckold of all time.

 

No, Joseph was simply Mary's husband for time.  Just as Brigham was to Eliza R. Snow, just as Hyrum Smith was to Mercy Fielding Thompson, just as thousands of other men were throughout the history of Mormonism.

[ELF1024]

No, Joseph was simply Mary's husband for time.  Just as Brigham was to Eliza R. Snow, just as Hyrum Smith was to Mercy Fielding Thompson, just as thousands of other men were throughout the history of Mormonism.

 

'meh... you asked. I answered. Just don't care of it... must be the Puritian influence.... You could be correct, I just don't care for it. It also bothers me to a great degree that Joseph was temple sealed to other men's wives while those men were still alive. I'm just a stick in the mud that way.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Ahab]

No, Joseph was simply Mary's husband for time. Just as Brigham was to Eliza R. Snow, just as Hyrum Smith was to Mercy Fielding Thompson, just as thousands of other men were throughout the history of Mormonism.

Interesting hypothesis, but I like the invitro fertilization hypothesis a lot better because it would mean Mary would have still been a virgin for Joseph.

The authority needed to marry her would be pretty much a given if your idea is true, though. It be like "By the authority invested in me I pronounce us husband and wife" and all she would have needed to say was Yes.

[ERayR]

Agreed. I think part of the reason the sexism comes about is because, in our fallen realm, it is pretty much true for every culture that the male gender has the predominant position of protecting the family/tribe/group. Our gender's physical advantage appropriately lends itself to that role. Yet, somehow society has let that role devolve into and/or continue as a sort condescension dressed up as gentlemanliness. Kindness for kindness sake = true gentmanliness. Kindness stemming from pointless acts of "protection" = demeaning sexism.

 

Please would all the women who feel it is sexist for me to hold a door for you please let me know so that I don't offend you. 

 

In reference to the poem it is interesting that great offense was taken of the actions of the cowboy and not a thing has been said about the over the top rudeness of the response toward an the act of holding the door open for her.

[BlueDreams]

 

It might suprise you to now that the CDC claims that one in four men are raped.

CFR. I haven't found that to be the case. The highest I could find was 1 in 33 men and potentially 1-in-6 male children. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/as-victims-men-struggle-for-rape-awareness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& . the CDC report I found stated 1 in 71 http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf . And all the reports I found noted that the rates are heavily effected if you include prison. It's not to say that it never happens. It does, but it happens more frequently when there is an incongruence in power/status (ie child-adult).

 

 

Ok, forget it. I'm missing the point. I see a bad actor, I see a stalker who needs to have his clock cleaned, and a woman who needs to buy a gun, obtain training, a Carry Permit,  and a willingness to use it.

 

If it was all men, society, or a problem with the Church, why trust the escorts? Why do we blame everything but the bad actor?

 

 

 

First of all, I'm sorry for your wife. I don't think the bad actor is to be ignored. In fact I think in our society that's what more commonly honed in on. It's easier that way. But the messages, culture, and actions of a society directly correlate with female violence. I was reading an ongoing sociological study that indicated just this. The more gendered and female oppressive the society is correlates with level of violence and instability within the nation. The social norms and concepts formate messages that directly link to the likelihood of violence and rape culture. That's why they call it rape culture.....there is a culture that surrounds and creates the environment with rape can occur. And there are things that maintain sexism period without it being noticed as such. Personally I've seen this plenty as a therapist and as a woman in general. I've seen it in my own family's own history of abuse in my grandfather. The problem is, if we solely focus on the perpetrator of the bad, we miss the needed changes to society to prevent and desist bad problems from surfacing in the first place. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

"If it was all men, society, or a problem with the Church, why trust the escorts? Why do we blame everything but the bad actor?"

Why are you guys (not all men, just those who do this) shifting what we are saying into something we aren't. Read my last sentence. I explicitly state that we know that not all men are rapists or lust machines (though those lessons as young women that we must help the young men avoid thoughts of lust don't help, you might want to talk to SL about changing that emphasis).

The women in this thread have protested elsewhere Kelly's use of abuse and references to rape when talking about church leadership. We have protested a blog that made the same accusation of rampant rape culture in the Church. We have pointed out Hudson's argument that the LDS view of marriage is the best protection against domestic violence.

You want us to believe that you respect women? Then listen to what we say and respond to that.

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[ELF1024]

CFR. I haven't found that to be the case. The highest I could find was 1 in 33 men and potentially 1-in-6 male children. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/as-victims-men-struggle-for-rape-awareness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& . the CDC report I found stated 1 in 71 http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf . And all the reports I found noted that the rates are heavily effected if you include prison. It's not to say that it never happens. It does, but it happens more frequently when there is an incongruence in power/status (ie child-adult).

 

I was wrong, I re-looked it up, and I must have read it wrong... corrected it above... 1 in 21 men (4.8%) are raped. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_rape)

[ELF1024]

You want us to believe that you respect women? Then listen to what we say and respond to that.

 

Ok, forget it. I'm done.

 

Peace out. See ya'll next time I get bored. This was clearly a bad idea.

[Calm]

Please would all the women who feel it is sexist for me to hold a door for you please let me know so that I don't offend you. 

 

In reference to the poem it is interesting that great offense was taken of the actions of the cowboy and not a thing has been said about the over the top rudeness of the response toward an the act of holding the door open for her.

Was anyone laughing or applauding or showing any signs of approval of her conduct (I called it crass myself, that is not approval or ignoring it). If no one is defending it, why is there a need to argue that there is something wrong in what she did? Everyone agrees.

Disagreement exists of the appropriateness of the cowboy's reaction and thus that is discussed.

[Calm]

I was wrong, I re-looked it up, and I must have read it wrong... corrected it above... 1 in 21 men (4.8%) are raped. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_rape)

You probably focused on the 4 in the percentage and switched that, common mistake...I did that when I switched Kelly to the speaker when she was being spoken for. I visualised the name in proximity to the word "two faced". Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

"If it was all men, society, or a problem with the Church, why trust the escorts? Why do we blame everything but the bad actor?"

Why are you guys (not all men, just those who do this) shifting what we are saying into something we aren't. Read my last sentence. I explicitly state that we know that not all men are rapists or lust machines (though those lessons as young women that we must help the young men avoid thoughts of lust don't help, you might want to talk to SL about changing that emphasis).

The women in this thread have protested elsewhere Kelly's use of abuse and references to rape when talking about church leadership. We have protested a blog that made the same accusation of rampant rape culture in the Church. We have pointed out Hudson's argument that the LDS view of marriage is the best protection against domestic violence.

You want us to believe that you respect women? Then listen to what we say and respond to that.

 

 

FWIW, I am so appalled by some of what I am reading here that I don't even know how to respond, nor do I want to. 

[sethpayne]

Joseph Smith spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization without actually ordaining women, and the common practice of women performing ordinances is likewise done without ordaining women.

 

 

Really?  I had no idea.  

 

 

 

Marriage, the family and the patriarchal order are also priesthood organizations without ordaining every member. So if qualifying as belonging to a priesthood organization or performing ordinances as delegated are considered a strong case for ordaining women, I think the supporters of such need to go back to the drawing board.

 

I often fail, but try to be fairly precise with my words.  Can you point out to me where I suggested that Church history or current temple practices supported the ordination of women?  I don't recall making that argument but I could be mistaken.  

 

That women hold the priesthood is beyond question to me.  Of course women who have been endowed hold the priesthood.  And, I would love to see the return of women blessing one another and their children.

 

But ordination is a separate question altogether -- one that I personally do not find much historical or scriptural support for (with a couple of exceptions that are too "iffy" to draw conclusions from).

[ERayR]

Was anyone laughing or applauding or showing any signs of approval of her conduct (I called it crass myself, that is not approval or ignoring it). If no one is defending it, why is there a need to argue that there is something wrong in what she did? Everyone agrees.

Disagreement exists of the appropriateness of the cowboy's reaction and thus that is discussed.

 

I must have missed your condemnation of her actions.

 

I could be wrong but if you go back and look the reaction was immediate and almost violent itself against the cowboys action.  It is interesting to observe who reacted and how to the provocations described in the poem.  Takes me back to a freshman English class I had in college.  The cowboys reaction to the young woman"s rudeness was immediately condemned, as it should be, but no general condemnation of the rudeness of the young woman.   Again it has been interesting to observe which way people came down on this.  I think that before we can ever come to a unity we have a lot of work to do.

 

Side note:  It has given me a little insight into KK"s frame of mind.  We each become fixated on our own perspective and have very little tolerance for something different.

[CV75]

Here’s a poem to analyze:

 

There once was a couple so sexist,

Each felt the other more vexist.

Tho’ gender-neutral not s/he,

Both  s/he and s/he

Somehow found a way to c’exist.

[CV75]

Really?  I had no idea.  

 

 

I often fail, but try to be fairly precise with my words.  Can you point out to me where I suggested that Church history or current temple practices supported the ordination of women?  I don't recall making that argument but I could be mistaken.  

 

That women hold the priesthood is beyond question to me.  Of course women who have been endowed hold the priesthood.  And, I would love to see the return of women blessing one another and their children.

 

But ordination is a separate question altogether -- one that I personally do not find much historical or scriptural support for (with a couple of exceptions that are too "iffy" to draw conclusions from).

You did not make the suggestion that Church history or current temple practices supported the ordination of women. My remark was a reiteration of yours that some like OW use it as their strongest case.

[mfbukowski]

. To steal from mfb, it may be who WE are (culturally speaking), but it doesn't have to be us. We can change and are changing, IMO for the better. It's about treating each other as equals with respect, regardless of cultural norms that may conspire against such treatment.

After we have reversed a few thousand years of cultural "development" and actually changed our biology, which is inseparable now from human cultural development, you may have a point.

 

This stuff is as old as opposable thumbs and flaking flint tools. The men take care of the tribe. They can be nice or nasty.  That's not going away soon no matter what we want to be.

[jkwilliams]

After we have reversed a few thousand years of cultural "development" and actually changed our biology, which is inseparable now from human cultural development, you may have a point.

 

This stuff is as old as opposable thumbs and flaking flint tools. The men take care of the tribe. They can be nice or nasty.  That's not going away soon no matter what we want to be.

I don't believe there's any biology involved, as some tribal societies are matriarchies, and as we've seen with other aspects of culture, things can and do change rather rapidly. We are not eternally bound by cultural vestiges of ancient tribal life, and I have faith that humanity can and will move beyond it. I guess I am not as fatalistic as you are.