escott3564 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I started this topic on MDB and Geeks, and was interested in thoughts here as well. One thing that is commonly criticized by critics about members of the Church is that they give off an attitude that they are superior to everyone else due to their knowledge of the gospel and their belief in the plan of salvation. I am one of those who have criticized my fellow members for acting this way when I have seen this behavior because it is un-Christlike and prideful.I have, however, noticed an interesting irony among critics. The very thing that they criticize members for, they, themselves, engage in. Many critics of the Church think that THEY are the ones who are superior because they feel that the Church is a bunch of garbage, and they have been "smart" enough to "see the light" and leave.In the DCP thread on MDB, Kish made a comment about how he doesn't understand how the women in the Church can put up with the practice of a Priesthood member always having to be present during activities. It was almost as if he was saying, "those women are so dumb to put up with this". Now, I hope that is not what he meant. I am just pointing out how comments like this can come across...particularly from someone who is a current MEMBER of the Church. Well, Kish, as Beastie pointed out, this practice has been in place since 1976. If you think it is such an awful idea, have you, as a Priesthood member, come out and said to anyone in the Church that you thought it was a dumb idea? Or did you simply blame the women for putting up with it? Men can speak out on these issues as well.I'm just saying that I think that we all need to take a look at how we are posing things to one another, and remember that there are good people across all of the spectrum.
Stone holm Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I have heard the argument over and over again, that by asserting that women should have greater access to Church keys, we are somehow demeaning the intelligence of the faithful women. To me this is a false flag argument. But when it comes to such cultural/political issues, we have a lot of such arguments. One way of quelling dissent without actually addressing the issue in question. One of those is to accuse the critic of arrogance, or demeaning the people he or she is trying to advocate in support of. Another is the frequent reference to steadying the ark.
bluebell Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 It's human nature. Most people think that people who don't agree with them are inferior in some kind of mental process or understanding-otherwise, they would obviously agree! 2
The Nehor Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 It's human nature. Most people think that people who don't agree with them are inferior in some kind of mental process or understanding-otherwise, they would obviously agree! Yeah, people other than me are incredibly stupid. It is a hard cross to bear but I endure as best I can.
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Yeah, people other than me are incredibly stupid. It is a hard cross to bear but I endure as best I can. 2
Popular Post Garden Girl Posted July 6, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 6, 2014 In the days when I served in RS presidencies, the Priesthood brother on duty was for our protection, not because we were dumb, and not because he was exercising authority over us. That has relaxed somewhat in my ward... i.e., RS presidencies can meet in the building without a PH member if there are two or more sisters and they lock the doors. During our enrichment nights, we even had a brother on duty who would see that sisters got to their cars safely. With new parking lot lighting etc., that has relaxed but we are encouraged to leave together, etc. We live in a resort town with lots of transients along the highway... I for one appreciated the brothers' presence. It had nothing to do with "Authority" but was a safety issue. GG 6
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 In the days when I served in RS presidencies, the Priesthood brother on duty was for our protection, not because we were dumb, and not because he was exercising authority over us. That has relaxed somewhat in my ward... i.e., RS presidencies can meet in the building without a PH member if there are two or more sisters and they lock the doors. During our enrichment nights, we even had a brother on duty who would see that sisters got to their cars safely. With new parking lot lighting etc., that has relaxed but we are encouraged to leave together, etc. We live in a resort town with lots of transients along the highway... I for one appreciated the brothers' presence. It had nothing to do with "Authority" but was a safety issue. GGI totally agree with this!
Thinking Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 It's amazing to me how much cuter my grandson is than others' grandchildren.
Avatar4321 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 In the days when I served in RS presidencies, the Priesthood brother on duty was for our protection, not because we were dumb, and not because he was exercising authority over us. That has relaxed somewhat in my ward... i.e., RS presidencies can meet in the building without a PH member if there are two or more sisters and they lock the doors. During our enrichment nights, we even had a brother on duty who would see that sisters got to their cars safely. With new parking lot lighting etc., that has relaxed but we are encouraged to leave together, etc. We live in a resort town with lots of transients along the highway... I for one appreciated the brothers' presence. It had nothing to do with "Authority" but was a safety issue. GG That was my understanding as well.
ERayR Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 In the DCP thread on MDB, Kish made a comment about how he doesn't understand how the women in the Church can put up with the practice of a Priesthood member always having to be present during activities. It was almost as if he was saying, "those women are so dumb to put up with this". Now, I hope that is not what he meant. I am just pointing out how comments like this can come across...particularly from someone who is a current MEMBER of the Church. Well, Kish, as Beastie pointed out, this practice has been in place since 1976. If you think it is such an awful idea, have you, as a Priesthood member, come out and said to anyone in the Church that you thought it was a dumb idea? Or did you simply blame the women for putting up with it? Men can speak out on these issues as well.I'm just saying that I think that we all need to take a look at how we are posing things to one another, and remember that there are good people across all of the spectrum. It might help to understand why these policies were instituted. The one you mentioned(of a Priesthood member always having to be present during activities) was, as I remember, instituted when there was a problem with some of the sisters being attacked in the parking lots in some areas of our cities s a couple of brothers were assigned to see the sisters safely to their cars. So once again in a hurry to cast aspersions, because of a lack of information you have erred.
Pahoran Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 It might help to understand why these policies were instituted. The one you mentioned(of a Priesthood member always having to be present during activities) was, as I remember, instituted when there was a problem with some of the sisters being attacked in the parking lots in some areas of our cities s a couple of brothers were assigned to see the sisters safely to their cars. So once again in a hurry to cast aspersions, because of a lack of information you have erred. Actually ERay, escott wasn't complaining about that practice. (At least not here -- I haven't seen the thread on the Sty, and probably won't.) She was protesting that Kishkumen, one of those "Well yeah, I'm a Mormon, but I'm much more intelligent than my stupid co-religionists, so you're safe with me" academic poseurs, was using that practice as an excuse to parade his imagined superiority. Regards,Pahoran
escott3564 Posted July 7, 2014 Author Posted July 7, 2014 Actually ERay, escott wasn't complaining about that practice. (At least not here -- I haven't seen the thread on the Sty, and probably won't.) She was protesting that Kishkumen, one of those "Well yeah, I'm a Mormon, but I'm much more intelligent than my stupid co-religionists, so you're safe with me" academic poseurs, was using that practice as an excuse to parade his imagined superiority. Regards,PahoranI do need to make a clarification which I had misinterpreted. Kish stated later on my thread that he did not mean his comment to come across the way it did. His particular comment was a miscommunication on my part. I have always had a good relationship with Kish and I take his correction at face value. This is Kish's clarification: I should have thought that my praise of LDS women as "capable or even more so than their male counterparts" made my respect for their abilities clear. Regretfully, some still think it is possible to imply LDS women are stupid at the same time. Luckily, I am here to reiterate my respect for the abilities of LDS women and clarify my statement by adding more detail: the power of culture and freedom to choose is evident in the fact that most LDS women tolerate the infantilizing treatment their Church inflicts upon them. My observation, however, is still something that I hold to. There have been other critics who have, indeed, acted in a superior mode for being out of the Church while complaining that Church members act superior to those who aren't members. The biggest example of this, in my opinion, is Scratch. He constantly complains about how DCP supposedly gossiped about this and that or the other, and complains about how certain apologists supposedly keep "Internet dossiers" on people they want to get in trouble, and then Scratch turns around and engages in the same behavior against people he doesn't like, or is trying to destroy. I think that the whole superiority complex is something that people on both sides of the aisle need to be conscious of. That was really my point.
escott3564 Posted July 7, 2014 Author Posted July 7, 2014 It might help to understand why these policies were instituted. The one you mentioned(of a Priesthood member always having to be present during activities) was, as I remember, instituted when there was a problem with some of the sisters being attacked in the parking lots in some areas of our cities s a couple of brothers were assigned to see the sisters safely to their cars. So once again in a hurry to cast aspersions, because of a lack of information you have erred.As far as the issue about a Priesthood member being present at all activities, I see nothing wrong with this means as a safety issue. Pahoran was right. I wasn't complaining about the particular practice of having the Priesthood present as means for extra safety. I appreciated not being alone in a building that was on a questionable side of town when I was teaching seminary. I do think that the practice can be carried a bit too far, but that is a topic for another thread. My point of this thread really had to do with the irony of critics tending to display the same type of behavior that they complain about. 2
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 That's the difficulty of life. We're all a bit hypocritical. it's way too hard not to be at some point. I don't want to get started on those characters on that other board, really, but Kish is well aware of the thousands of times I pointed out his hypocrisy. I didn't mean to hurt his feelings, but to suggest he plain needed to lighten up and stop pettily criticizing people for pretty common behaviors, most of which he tended to exhibit in the next breath anyway. He suggested, in essence, "well it's not bad if I do this bad stuff on this board because it's just this board and it's not like I'm publishing it". Whatever that meant I wasn't sure. Isn't posting something publishing it for all to see, particularly on an open board like that. So I pointed that out and oops. for that he was extra mad at me calling me names after each of my posts, often putting in all caps LIAR multiple times. All I can say there were adorable games played over there--not too familiar with the general atmosphere now though. It presented for me a great case study of "The very thing that they criticize members for, they, themselves, engage in." which I know you've seen me say, or something similar, many times in the past. I always tried to impress upon him that I wished him well, though. And if he sees this, I wish him well again. No harm and fouls, just move forward into a better place.
Stone holm Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Yeah, people other than me are incredibly stupid. It is a hard cross to bear but I endure as best I can.It's hard to be humble...
Recommended Posts