Feminist Wants Women Only Speakers At General Meeting

[JLHPROF]

There are times when I question why I participate on this Board.  I think it is for those moments, rare to find at times, when I learn a better way to apply the gospel or when I sense a greater understanding of a gospel topic due to the comment of others.  However, sometimes I question if I even belong to the same tribe of everyone here.  I don't understand the apparent need to agitate, to demand, and to seek after change that several contributors promote constantly.  

 

I realize that this Board promotes an environment where almost any topic can be discussed within the Church of Jesus Christ and this will naturally attract dissenters and those with problems of all kinds.  Thankfully, when I attend Church I am struck that this Board does not represent the common members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is only a place where a select subset of the membership comes.  Those that like to "push buttons" or to stir the pot relentlessly about a very few topics are attracted here in numbers.  

 

The question is why do I return?  Gads, I realize that it is my own version of watching soap operas - a waste of time, but I don't cease to return. 

 

One thing that might help is if we could individually block certain topics or entries/comments that address certain topics similar to the way in which we can block specific contributors' comments.  I guess I just have extreme topic fatigue.  

 

Nothing like some good old censorship.  But seriously, there is a block function you can use on people you don't want to hear from.

 

I hope I'm not one of those you would block   - I don't agitate for "progressive" change, I agitate for a return to the gospel before we made all the changes so far.

 

Besides, it wouldn't be the same without you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess we are different. The God I worship is no respecter of persons. He gives liberally to all. The only limitations are their desires. If growing up means abandoning these principles, I'll be staying in Primary.

Context matters in which that verse was given. And the context is about salvation. Period. It was not about everyone have all the same stuff.

 

Even the idea of "all things in common" does not mean that everyone did the same things and held the same offices and worked at the same places and all had a big 70 inch TV.

 

I think the PC movement has corrupted peoples thinking.

 

And no the "only limitation are their desires" is false doctrine.  No wonder you believe gay marriage will happen one day in the church. You believe in false doctrine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay. I'll ask just one more question. If women are allowed to receive priesthood offices some day, do you think that you would decline the offer? Your statements suggest that you would find no benefit from ordination.

What on earth makes you think it is going to change? Because the PC world says that it should. Remember, you have PC blinders on that are stopping your from seeing reality.

 

Men and women are different had have different roles.

[mormonnewb]

No what creates disrespect is our inability to own who we are and not insist on being someone else because we think they have some perk we don't.

How about a little self-respect and understanding of how God created each one of us, differently from how he created others.

Godhood is the goal for all.

I wonder if your view of a God who created white men with ALL of the perks and privileges would be different if you weren't a white man. Actually, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

[JLHPROF]

I wonder if your view of a God who created white men with ALL of the perks and privileges would be different if you weren't a white man. Actually, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

 

Ouch.  Thanks for labeling me racist AND psychoanalyzing me in the same post. 

 

 

Actually, I think it says more about you than me, so I'm ok with it.

Edited March 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[mormonnewb]

Huh? Do women who fundamentally disagree with the tactics, rhetoric and objectives of the OW group "disrespect" the OW group?

Also, is it possible that the OW group has done some things which do not merit respect (I'm thinking of things like staging protests on sacred ground, Kate Kelly telling her followers to "raise hell" in the Church, and so on)?

Thanks,

-Smac

We've been over your "trespass is the crime next to murder" rant many times before. Just a reminder, a sit-in is a criminal trespass. So Dr. King, Kate Kelly and I all plead guilty to this abominable offense. May smac have mercy on our souls!

Seriously, my brother, if the worse thing that any of us has ever done is commit a MISDEMEANOR trespass, we are the most righteous people ever. As the young people say -- #neverthatserious.

[carbon dioxide]

I wonder if your view of a God who created white men with ALL of the perks and privileges would be different if you weren't a white man. Actually, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

Are you saying that God gave only these "perks" to only white men?  There are plenty of non-white people around the world and in the US that have many advantages and there are many white guys on who are in poverty. 

[carbon dioxide]

 

The temple provides women with ALL the priesthood keys they need to become Gods.  Anything else is outside of what God has revealed.

Every single blessing that God can ever give a woman is already offered to her already.  There is no special exaltation status for women who have the priesthood.  When a woman asks for the priesthood, she is basically asking for more work and responsibility but gains nothing in return from God.

[why me]

I wonder if your view of a God who created white men with ALL of the perks and privileges would be different if you weren't a white man. Actually, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

Now you are going off topic again. I am still amazed how you have survived on this board without being placed on limited or even banned. I have to wonder if the mods are giving you breaks because you are black. I hope not. But I do know that I was placed on limited for a far less offense.   But such is life....

[mormonnewb]

I know this isn't addressed to me (obviously) but once again priesthood order has been established for eternities before the foundation of this world.

If Pres. Monson laid his hands upon a womans head and ordained her an Elder in the Melchezidek Priesthood she STILL WOULDN'T BE AN ELDER because it would be of no effacy. Just as if he were to attempt to seal two men across the altar in the temple, they still WOULDN'T BE SEALED.

You cannot alter eternal order, ordinances, and laws.

The temple provides women with ALL the priesthood keys they need to become Gods. Anything else is outside of what God has revealed.

You're a VERY smart guy! Why can't you see that the same EXACT thing was said by an equally smart man in 1977 about blacks. And that very smart man was dead wrong.

You're an educator, right? Isn't one point of education to learn from the past?

Why are we so committed to making the SAME mistakes repeatedly?

[why me]

We've been over your "trespass is the crime next to murder" rant many times before. Just a reminder, a sit-in is a criminal trespass. So Dr. King, Kate Kelly and I all plead guilty to this abominable offense. May smac have mercy on our souls!

Seriously, my brother, if the worse thing that any of us has ever done is commit a MISDEMEANOR trespass, we are the most righteous people ever. As the young people say -- #neverthatserious.

I wonder how Paul would have reacted to church sit-ins during his time. I think that he may not have been too happy. We still need to remember that we are dealing with a church which claims to be directed by god, a church which you are a member of. Of course, you can stage your own sit in next sunday. why not? You can protest heavenly father's decision not to allow female priesthood ordination.

 

Do we really need to discuss race again for the upteenth time?

Edited March 27, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I wonder how Paul would have reacted to church sit-ins during his time. I think that he may not have been too happy. We still need to remember that we are dealing with a church which claims to be directed by god, a church which you are a member of. Of course, you can stage your own sit in next sunday. why not? You can protest heavenly father's decision not to allow female priesthood ordination.

Do we really need to discuss race again for the upteenth time?

For the THOUSANDTH time, I am not talking about race. I'm simply drawing a parallel between two similar situations (at least in my view).

However, since you can't possibly stand any possible mention of the past, do me a big favor and block me. I have this horrible habit of drawing parallels and trying to apply the lessons of the past to the events of the present (I think I picked up this bad habit at a "liberal" college or two).

I think Kenngo can testify that blocking me has vastly improved his board experience and I assure you that it will improve yours (or at least, mine).

[mormonnewb]

Now you are going off topic again. I am still amazed how you have survived on this board without being placed on limited or even banned. I have to wonder if the mods are giving you breaks because you are black. I hope not. But I do know that I was placed on limited for a far less offense. But such is life....

Just a little hint ... accusing the mods of having a racial bias might have something to do with your limited status.

[carbon dioxide]

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.

 

I am not a woman but I think perhaps some of has to do with the fact that the actions by feminists might have an impact on the rest of the women who really are not interested in what the feminists want.  I don't want other people making decisions for me.  I want to make decisions for myself and in matters that affect me, I want a say.   There are women that want to have the priesthood.  The problem is the priesthood in the LDS Church does function like ordination in other churches.  In other churches, one chooses to be ordained.  There is no expectation that someone be ordained.  That is not really the case in the LDS Church.  All males are expected to hold the priesthood when they are of age.  If women get the priesthood, the same rules and expectations would apply to the women as the men.  All female members of the Church would be expected to be ordained.  So what Kate Kelly desired would have put my wife under the same obligations.  My wife does not want to be ordained but Kate Kelly and others are in effect trying to force ordination on my wife.  How is it fair to my wife that a feminist is forcing something on my wife that she does not desire or want?  

 

It is not that feminists are attacked because of their personal views, they are "attacked" because they do not represent women as a whole.  Whenever a minority tries to force the majority into their way of thinking, blow back is going to happen.

[BlueDreams]

Well this thread was interesting to read through....I have a few sporadic thoughts 

 

I just came across an interesting article that touches on this issue (WARNING: The author describes some pretty harrowing stuff):

‘Microaggressions’ And ‘Trigger Warnings,’ Meet Real Trauma
I don't want to hear your whining about 'microaggressions' and 'trigger warnings.' Those aren't trauma. Besides, coming to terms with pain is part of growing up.
By Chris Hernandez

 
Here are some excerpts:
Read the whole thing if you are so inclined (particularly the section "Here’s What to Do With Your Trauma"). Mr. Hernandez has some salty language (bleeped out in the above link, but not in the original blog post), but I think he makes some fairly salient points.

Oh vey, as a therapist this article grates on me like something bad. It reads as comparing apples to oranges from someone who is well acquainted with one form of mental/emotional concerns, but isn't exactly an expert in psych. I would have never compared the trauma he mentioned (which is likely to lead to PTSD symptoms and is considered severe) to the trauma of persistent patterns of microagreesions (which is mild and more insidious). And he's got what people (or at least what a therapist) would suggest you do with triggers a little off as well. Triggers are used broadly used, not solely for microagressions or the examples he has but also for severe/complex trauma, anxiety, phobias, panic attacks etc. What to do with them depends on the case, but it could include things like desensitization, breathing and self-calming exercises to ease stress/anxiety associated, understanding the triggers and what they pointing to/developing awareness of it then helping them differentiate between the varying experiences, and yes at times avoiding (rarely...I've told someone to do that once or twice and they weren't about microaggressions or what people said to them).  And of course he chooses some fairly whimpy microaggressions (they're like the gnats of microaggressions) to compare to PTSD-worthy trauma. This reads like the a pop-cultural commentary to another pop-culture understanding of psychological/sociological terms. And, yes, microagressions can have a mental/emotional effect. It's not TRAUMA that leads to PTSD (what he's mentioning). But the overarching experience can be "traumatic" (i've never actually used the term in such a way....ever. But I'll use it here for lack of a better word) in the sense that it can heighten symptoms of depression, effect self-image and esteem, alter how people interact with their social circles, and increase stress/anxiety. I say this from seeing it with a number of clients, as well as with myself. It's not ever a presenting problem....but it is a problem...one that can feed into other existing issues or hinder care.    

 

This reads like someone who's comparing shingles or eczema to cancer. Of course cancer's worse. It doesn't mean you shouldn't treat the other two or acknowledge that they are problems.

 

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women).  Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

When I read the article, it appeared that she was over-reaching and it bothered me....but in reading the actual letter she penned, I can see your point. I disagreed a little, but it was written more as an opinion or idea rather than a demand or speaking for a group.

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.  During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.  I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

 

True....but there were certainly some strong divergent voices, particularly at the end and overall methodology. Think SNCC, Malcom X, etc. The difference is that the overarching system was the far greater evil in everyone's mind. Once a number of those concerns began to be met, the abject unity also began to falter.

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

 

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood.  And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

 

I don't mind historical parallel, but I honestly think it's the wrong one. Race and Gender equality have been 2 differing fields, in or outside the church. So it's been fairly common for there to be far more divergent views on gender, than with race within the minority groups mentioned. But if you want a fairer comparison, it's probably closer to race issues now, not in the past with segregation and outright oppression. Think about how ascribing oneself as mixed race, particularly on legal documents/census or with Tiger Woods is taken within the black community (particularly 15 years ago). It can be a sore topic. It's not that black people have suddenly become against equality or anything of the sort. It's that their idea of what that entails and how it may effect viewing in-groups and general racial identity are likely differ.

 

Now back to gender and feminism. I saw a similar problem with this in differing things I had to read or watch for a class. A person of (western) feminist bend enters a community with a female who wants changes to her life that often deals with gender issues. The problems is that the person is often bringing outsider ideals that either don't fit or seem intrusive to the other woman's vision. I have met next to no female (leaving wiggle room here) who would outright say that women shouldn't be seen, treated, and dealt with as equals. Where the division comes is in understanding what that means or should entail. Where you're seeing vitriol is probably in the spots where these ideals are coming to the greatest head. I consider myself a feminist and yet I chafe at some of the descriptors you've used to describe LDS gender concerns (ex. priesthood apartheid). So even being a feminist does not equate unity in ideals....why would it be surprising that in the broader community that would suddenly dissipate?

 

I'm going to say something radical. I really am not that enthusiastic about the women's conference. I don't think it's that big a deal. So women have their own conference. Are the messages any different. I'm not enthusiastic about most women speakers, though we have had some excellent ones. I think it's very sad that some women want to create a division between men and women because of society's promotion of the feminist definition of "equality". I suppose that is why in social gatherings I have preferred the company of men who don't overreact to every supposed slight. This is why I have always preferred male bosses. You can be direct with them without them getting offended because you get right to the point without all the preliminary niceties.

Huh, interesting... I don't know if I've ever really noticed a preference when talking to either gender....in fact the only person I've ever had complain about me on the job was a male. In the past, I definitely preferred the other conference sessions (minus priesthood....to this day, I still haven't read or listened to all of a priesthood session. And when it's on live I'm partying it up with some girl friends and lots of food). And I still haven't had a female boss (unless I count supervision for therapy...in which I haven't noticed a difference)....so I have nothing to compare them to. From my personal experience I haven't really noted a major difference about who will or won't take offense at slights, perceived or real. I have sometimes noticed a difference in how they deal with them. Both approaches can be unhealthy and have their benefits.

 

 

End of random thoughts.

With luv,

BD

[Sleeper Cell]

We've been over your "trespass is the crime next to murder" rant many times before. Just a reminder, a sit-in is a criminal trespass. So Dr. King, Kate Kelly and I all plead guilty to this abominable offense. May smac have mercy on our souls!

Seriously, my brother, if the worse thing that any of us has ever done is commit a MISDEMEANOR trespass, we are the most righteous people ever. As the young people say -- #neverthatserious.

Please refresh my memory.  Did Dr. King ever conduct a sit-in at a  "whites-only" church ?  Or even suggest that anyone had a civil right to hold a church office (or even be a member) without the consent of that church?  

[Senator]

Clearly you don't relish the opportunity to hear for a prophet of God? That is what it looks like you are saying.

 

If we don't feel "relishment" for hearing a prophet of God,  should be ashamed? Guilt-ridden? Remorseful?

 

I have come to not hold high expectations for the Prophet or Apostle's addresses. For instance, we recently had a special stake conference with a visiting Apostle. Very rare.  But I came away feeling an actual greater spiritual message was delivered by our Stake President and even the local temple president. The Apostle's address was rather typical.

[mormonnewb]

I am not a woman but I think perhaps some of has to do with the fact that the actions by feminists might have an impact on the rest of the women who really are not interested in what the feminists want. I don't want other people making decisions for me. I want to make decisions for myself and in matters that affect me, I want a say. There are women that want to have the priesthood. The problem is the priesthood in the LDS Church does function like ordination in other churches. In other churches, one chooses to be ordained. There is no expectation that someone be ordained. That is not really the case in the LDS Church. All males are expected to hold the priesthood when they are of age. If women get the priesthood, the same rules and expectations would apply to the women as the men. All female members of the Church would be expected to be ordained. So what Kate Kelly desired would have put my wife under the same obligations. My wife does not want to be ordained but Kate Kelly and others are in effect trying to force ordination on my wife. How is it fair to my wife that a feminist is forcing something on my wife that she does not desire or want?

It is not that feminists are attacked because of their personal views, they are "attacked" because they do not represent women as a whole. Whenever a minority tries to force the majority into their way of thinking, blow back is going to happen.

But why would all women be forced to be

ordained? Didn't we go through this same thing when women were first allowed to serve missions? Did it "force" all women to serve missions? Of course not.

Allowing some women to assume additional duties in the Church didn't obligate all women to do so in that case. Why would it here?

[Rivers]

My problem with the OW movement is that I don't feel that priesthood offices are something that one should aspire to.  Priesthood offices are a responsibility.  Not a right. 

[Yirgacheffe]

 

For example, mormon women are highly educated. They work across professions and are success in a wide variety of businesses. Or they can be a home mom and receive great respect for that career too. No one looks down at a stay at home mom in the church. And no one looks down upon professional lds women or working class lds women.

This not looking down on women for their choice is as far as I've seen SOP, for my whole life. Growing up my mom worked she was best friends with 2 women who stayed at home. Myself, coming into contact (or inserting myself) through my kids sports activities, local volunteering such as school and park district, and taking on various part time jobs "in the neighborhood" I've seen quite a bit of the choices women make in regards to kids and work.  No one ever misses a beat on any choice that women make, high powered women in demanding careers are close friends with moms who went to college and had a family after a few years in the work force but decided to stay at home.  The women who had good well paying positions and decided to leave the working world and be a stay at home mom are respected by both the SHM and the working mothers.  Out here people don't seem to make any distinction, they just interact with the "mom" in front of them as the person she is not as a "stay at home mom" as opposed to a "working mom".  They look at the individual not the paradigm.  Women members of the LDS church may have encouragement but I doubt it it exceeds what is found in any other church.

[why me]

Just a little hint ... accusing the mods of having a racial bias might have something to do with your limited status.

Actually, I was warned because I was too aggressive with you which eventually led to my limited status.

 

However, this thread was about women. It should remain the subject of the thread. To make comparisons with race, changes the thread dynamics and lessens the topic about women. In other words it creates a two front discussion and lessens the discussion about women by drawing attention to race. And a comparison with race may not be a good comparison when discussing women in the church. It can cheapen a discussion about race in the USA when such comparisons are made and many blacks may be offended with comparing white lds women with black civil rights.

 

I never put anyone on ignore. But you can put me on ignore.

Edited March 28, 2015 by why me

[Mormonmaniac]

I grew up in the traditional family home with a mother, father, siblings, etc. Father was the "head of household" and mother was generally the stay at home mom whofilled that traditional role of bearing children, raising us, nurturing us. Mother had the soft yet firm voice while father had the traditional enforcer of the law voice. We watched a lot of Little House on the Prairie growing up and at that time it reflected how most Americans viewed the traditional roles of each member of the family. No one had a problem with these roles, it worked and generally society got along quite well. So what happened in the last 30 years to get us to this point? I am oft intrigued by how much different man and woman are but yet perfectly compliment each other and balance out. In todays society for some reason, those distinct qualities are blurring and society is trying to force some kind of equality in areas that wasnt meant to be. I am reminded here of how different my body is than my wife. I am taller, more physically stronger and my voice is louder and deeper. My wife has a much more pleasant voice, softer more subtle and beautiful skin texture, etc. My wife has always deferred to me as the head of our household because of tradition basically but I think instinctively it has something to do with our physical makeup and how those traits work naturally for the benefit of the family. For instance-

I always felt I could argue or get away with things when my mother was in charge and father was away. But at the same time I knew that father was the enforcer with the belt, the voice, and his physical strength. He definitely was the enforcer of the law. As being such, it leads naturally that he is also the protector generally. Just as the police or army in society are also the protectors, they also are the law enforcers. As there must be a head in any group who takes charge, it helps drastically if the head is able to physically enforce the law and has a voice of powerful physical authority. Just as police use guns and weapons as a way of enforcing and having authority, men also naturally have that with physical strength and a strong deep authoritive voice. This is not to say that this places man above woman, it just shows that the roles of man and woman in society have different natural abilities that balance out and make it all work. In a proper relationship between husband and wife, their roles are equally important to benefit society. So what if mans responsibility is to preside over the family? Does this make women second class? No, not at all. Women's main responsibility is to bring God's children into existence and continue Gods main purpose of perpetuating life. That responsibility is by far the greatest and most sacred process and key to exaltation. As such, there needs to be a man to guard, watch over, and enforce the law to protect such. And so, thats how it is, we each have different roles based off of our physical anatomies. Its too bad that in modern society we are trying to blend those roles and cheapen the other or even compete with each others roles. The man and woman's bodies were not made to compete against each other. They were made to compliment each other.

The priesthood keys are given to man as his responsibility as law enforcer and protector over society to protect the work of God so that it continues. Without the woman, none of it makes any sense as there would be no life to perpetuate. Society thinks it unfair that man holds the priesthood keys and woman doesnt. But why is it not thought the other way around that society think it unfair that man cannot bear life and perpetuate it on this earth? I go out in the world and perform my priesthood responsibilities and it to me really pails in comparison to the sacred gift of bearing new life into the world. As such, it gives me tremendous joy I have the gift of protector and law enforcer to protect woman and life. If that makes me "head" in my household then so be it, but it doesnt negate the fact that a woman's role of bearing and rearing life is in no way second class to priesthood keys.

[mormonnewb]

There are times when I question why I participate on this Board. I think it is for those moments, rare to find at times, when I learn a better way to apply the gospel or when I sense a greater understanding of a gospel topic due to the comment of others. However, sometimes I question if I even belong to the same tribe of everyone here. I don't understand the apparent need to agitate, to demand, and to seek after change that several contributors promote constantly.

I realize that this Board promotes an environment where almost any topic can be discussed within the Church of Jesus Christ and this will naturally attract dissenters and those with problems of all kinds. Thankfully, when I attend Church I am struck that this Board does not represent the common members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is only a place where a select subset of the membership comes. Those that like to "push buttons" or to stir the pot relentlessly about a very few topics are attracted here in numbers.

The question is why do I return? Gads, I realize that it is my own version of watching soap operas - a waste of time, but I don't cease to return.

One thing that might help is if we could individually block certain topics or entries/comments that address certain topics similar to the way in which we can block specific contributors' comments. I guess I just have extreme topic fatigue.

Let me get this straight. You hop into a thread entitled "Feminist Wants Woman Only Speakers ..." and you are dismayed that the topic is about FEMINISTS? Really? Do you also walk into ice cream shops and complain about the lack of fresh vegetables?

There are three dozen threads available at all times on this board and all, the majority of which have nothing to do with gays, feminists or race. Yet, you find your way onto one of those rare threads and then bemoan that this is ALL we talk about around here.

As my dear nana used to say, "Baby, if you can't stand the heat, then choose one of the 30 threads not dealing with these issues." Or something like that.

[mormonnewb]

Actually, I was warned because I was too aggressive with you which eventually led to my limited status.

However, this thread was about women. It should remain the subject of the thread. To make comparisons with race, changes the thread dynamics and lessens the topic about women. In other words it creates a two front discussion and lessens the discussion about women by drawing attention to race. And a comparison with race may not be a good comparison when discussing women in the church. It can cheapen a discussion about race in the USA when such comparisons are made and many blacks may be offended with comparing white lds women with black civil rights.

I never put anyone on ignore. But you can put me on ignore.

.

Let's be clear. You're being "too aggressive with me" wasn't about race, but rather your insistence that I was a LIAR. Or have you forgotten the DOZENS of times that you accused me of being an imposter -- someone posing as a black Mormon (for all of the cred that would buy me "in the hood," presumably).

Perhaps, the reason that the mods have been "so light" on me has nothing to do with melanin, but rather that, for all of my sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole, I refrain for accusing other people of constructing an alternative online reality. Despite our many disagreements, I have never accused you of being a 7-foot tall, albino Buddhist (not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you).

Perhaps, now that I've actually lifted my online kimono and proven you WRONG, you will stop questioning the integrity of others (black, white or purple). Or you can keep accusing the mods of "hating the white man." Your call.

Sean Carter

Member #: [it's written down here somewhere]

[why me]

.

Let's be clear. You're being "too aggressive with me" wasn't about race, but rather your insistence that I was a LIAR. Or have you forgotten the DOZENS of times that you accused me of being an imposter -- someone posing as a black Mormon (for all of the cred that would buy me "in the hood," presumably).

Perhaps, the reason that the mods have been "so light" on me has nothing to do with melanin, but rather that, for all of my sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole, I refrain for accusing other people of constructing an alternative online reality. Despite our many disagreements, I have never accused you of being a 7-foot tall, albino Buddhist (not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you).

Perhaps, now that I've actually lifted my online kimono and proven you WRONG, you will stop questioning the integrity of others (black, white or purple). Or you can keep accusing the mods of "hating the white man." Your call.

Sean Carter

Member #: [it's written down here somewhere]

On the web, catfishing is a huge problem. For example, I could come on this board, claim to be a lds woman, and write about my oppression in the lds church and compare it to any analogy I wish as long as it is in the board guidelines. And if I keep posting posts with such claims about being a woman over and over again and comparisons, I think that it would be okay for someone to call me out to prove my gender. How many people been duped online with relationships and with people claiming to be what they are not? However, it is good that you proved who you are. It does make you more credible. However, again I would say that comparisons always do not fit like a glove and bringing up the black issue in a thread about lds women may be a stretch and insult to the civil right movement. Most lds women have experienced some sort of 'white' privilage in US society.

 

Another example, women cannot become roman cathoic priests and yet, there is an organization that fights for roman catholic women to become priests. Can we compare these women to the black civil rights movement in the US. Hardly. Such comparisons would not succeed. I think that you are doing s disservice by overplaying the race card in your comparisons to gender or same-sex issues. The comparisons are flimsy at best.

 

Interestingly, you have been silent about your wife's feelings about the issues that you bring up. Where does she stand on OW. Does she want the priesthood? Does she feel discriminated against in the lds church? Her feelings would be important for more understanding of your positions on the board.

 

Actually, I enjoy reading your posts. They are usually aggressive, such as your last reply to stormrider, and I find it all very interesting that someone can be so disrespectful to a poster. In fact, I am amazed by it. But it also doesn't keep for peaceful reading which is problematic. When reading posts on a mormon board, I would prefer more peaceful dialogue.

Edited March 28, 2015 by why me