cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You don't know me, so kindly don't presume to accuse me of behaving "blindly." I have thousands of posts on this board that demonstrate I really rather like reasoning and analysis. Perhaps you and your three dozen posts could postpone passing absurd judgments on people you don't know and instead engage them in reasoned discussion. Or maybe since you don't know me either, you could refrain from passing such absurd judgments on me as well. It's interesting, I was simply responding to your current posts, I wasn't aware that I was obligated to read your thousands of past posts (which I was not even aware of, funnily enough!) in order to discuss this issue. I have explained that it is arbitrary to make a decision to exclude a person from a meeting or a position on the basis of their gender. You apparently disagree, and you have announced several times you will not discuss it further with me, so why do you keep coming back? I've explained my definition of arbitrariness, and clearly you are not in agreement! End of story. I do stand by this comment of mine, however: "Although it is telling that you decide there is no point in communicating right when you are backed into a corner about your position that men cannot be in the Primary Presidency. Because of how 'nonarbitrary' it is, right? "
smac97 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, juliann said: That would be unthinkable, wouldn't it....women being considered as necessary as men in running the church. Too awful for words. I hope it isn't one of those visuals some men won't ever be able to get out of their heads.... (And being a woman and thus unfamiliar with the male inner workings, you might even be able to trip me up with a meeting that should be all male or female!) Your attribution to people like me of contempt and malice toward women is irritating and offensive. And inaccurate. I wish you would stop it. I would like to have a reasoned and principled discussion about women's issues in the church. I don't need to be not-so-subtly accused of sexism at every turn. Snide and uncharitable and untrue characterizations like " that would be unthinkable" and "too awful for words" are very detrimental to discussion on this board. If this has been an exercise in genderbaiting and gaslighting, well, you've succeeded. I have great respect and admiration for the women of the church. I do not look down on them in any respect, your vicious mischaracterisation to the contrary notwithstanding. -Smac Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have great respect and admiration for the women of the church. I do not look down on them in any respect, your vicious mischaracterisation notwithstanding. But, they are not allowed to hold certain positions and do certain jobs, ONLY by virtue of their being female, right? With no concern about their abilities or capabilities, right? As a female, I would respectfully note that your 'great respect and admiration' for women is 'great respect and admiration' for a stereotype that women would appreciate being unshackled from. If you truly do not 'look down' on women as a whole, how about considering each women as an individual person? It is so irritating to hear my entire 'gender group' is respected, for no reason other than that we all are the same gender. The pedestal stereotyping is offensive, no matter what words you wrap it in. 1
juliann Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 I wasn't addressing your post or you. If you want to include yourself do so but don't blame me. You have been hostile to me since I began speaking up for women so I do not engage you anymore. 1
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, juliann said: I wasn't addressing your post or you. If you want to include yourself do so but don't blame me. You have been hostile to me since I began speaking up for women so I do not engage you anymore. A wise policy, Julian. I think I will be adopting it as well.
Teancum Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, juliann said: This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present. Bishopric meeting, Stake Presidency Meeting, High Council meeting.....all without women. Priesthood meetings too. Edited June 28, 2016 by Teancum
smac97 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, cynth said: But, they are not allowed to hold certain positions and do certain jobs, ONLY by virtue of their being female, right? Correct. Likewise, men are also not allowed to hold certain positions in the LDS Church, ONLY by virtue of their being male (though most also require the man who hold the priesthood as well). Quote With no concern about their abilities or capabilities, right? Correct. There are untold numbers of LDS women who would be fantastic bishops and stake presidents and whatnot. And yet they are precluded from holding such positions because the Lord has limited the priesthood to men. So the Lord's rationale in this area is apparently not based on "abilities or capabilities." Quote As a female, I would respectfully note that your 'great respect and admiration' for women is 'great respect and admiration' for a stereotype Bull. You don't know me. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. And your characterization is wrong. Quote that women would appreciate being unshackled from. I don't think you speak for "women." Quote If you truly do not 'look down' on women as a whole, how about considering each women as an individual person? Says the person who just presumed to A) tell me what I think, and B) to speak for "women" as a category. Quote It is so irritating to hear my entire 'gender group' is respected, for no reason other than that we all are the same gender. Well, you have a point. There are cranks in the Church (and out) who take offense where not is given or intended or implied. Who presume to lecture others about what those others think and feel (despite not knowing them). Who presume to speak on behalf "women" as an entire category in one breath, and then complain about "women" being discussed as a category in the next. I will nevertheless maintain my respect for the women of the Church collectively. I give women in the Church the benefit of the doubt. Respect is presumptively given to each individual with whom I interact, and then reduced in increments when the individual does or says things that are malicious, mean-spirited, unfair, ignorant, and so on. Quote The pedestal stereotyping is offensive, no matter what words you wrap it in. I don't put women on a pedestal. They have their flaws and weaknesses to go along with their attributes and strengths. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when studied and utilized, makes women better human beings. It does the same thing to men. So much so that I am willing to grant a presumption of decency and good faith in each individual I meet. It's a matter of hope. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97
smac97 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, juliann said: I wasn't addressing your post or you. If you want to include yourself do so but don't blame me. You have been hostile to me since I began speaking up for women so I do not engage you anymore. Whatever. I have no qualms whatsoever with you or anyone else "speaking up for women." I simply take exception to being branded with accusations of sexism and misogyny. I likewise take exception to such accusations when thrown out willy-nilly against men in general (particularly men qua Latter-day Saints). Consider this: "That would be unthinkable, wouldn't it....women being considered as necessary as men in running the church. Too awful for words." I have not seen anything in this thread to merit such offensive genderbaiting. Nobody has suggested or implied that women are not "considered as necessary as men in running the church." I think it's possible to "speak up for women" without vilifying and excoriating men. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97 2
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, Teancum said: Bishopric meeting, Stake Presidency Meeting, High Council meeting.....all without women. Priesthood meetings too. Somebody has to make those doughnuts, right?!! (although I am not very good at donutmaking... maybe I am the wrong gender... I know, I will change genders!... oops, not allowed. Oh man, how come I'm not good at all those stereotypical gender based things? it's almost like God meant for me to be an individual.... no, that can't be it, because smac97 says the handbook is NOT ARBITRARY... therefore since smac97 respects the genderness of me-but not the individual me- I need to learn to make donuts, and not go to meetings, and glory in being respected for my genderness!! If I could only squelch all my individualness in pursuit of my appropriate and handbook-designated genderness, I will be acceptable before the non-arbitrary priesthoodness of smac97's handbook god, and therefore, ...eternal glory. right? Eternal damn glory!!)
Teancum Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 24 minutes ago, smac97 said: . Your best post and quick to the point yet! 1
Teancum Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, cynth said: Somebody has to make those doughnuts, right?!! (although I am not very good at donutmaking... maybe I am the wrong gender... I know, I will change genders!... oops, not allowed. Oh man, how come I'm not good at all those stereotypical gender based things? it's almost like God meant for me to be an individual.... no, that can't be it, because smac97 says the handbook is NOT ARBITRARY... therefore since smac97 respects the genderness of me-but not the individual me- I need to learn to make donuts, and not go to meetings, and glory in being respected for my genderness!! If I could only squelch all my individualness in pursuit of my appropriate and handbook-designated genderness, I will be acceptable before the non-arbitrary priesthoodness of smac97's handbook god, and therefore, ...eternal glory. right? Eternal damn glory!!) Hey I was simply pointing out there are lots of meetings where woman don't attend. FYI I would be happy to see women have the preisthood and join in all the fun!
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Correct. There are untold numbers of LDS women who would be fantastic bishops and stake presidents and whatnot. And yet they are precluded from holding such positions because the Lord has limited the priesthood to men You mean because men's interpretation of what the Lord has intended has been imposed and controlled by men. (by the way, this is where you get your reputation as a sexist.) 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am the world's leading authority on what I think Oh boy, I am 100% behind you on that!! 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: Says the person who just presumed to A) tell me what I think, and B) to speak for "women" as a category. Why yes, yes I did just say women would like to be treated as individuals, and I did say that on behalf of all women! What on earth is your point?!!! 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: I will nevertheless maintain my respect for the women of the Church collectively. Well there you go then. Gender stereotyping at its finest. Didn't you say you weren't going to discuss this anymore? When does that kick in?
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think it's possible to "speak up for women" without vilifying and excoriating men. Of course. why would you think otherwise? this thread has been about women not attending meetings solely on the bass of gender. How did you go from that to vilifying men? Unless you want to stereotype men also, and are feeling guilty for that.....
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 16 minutes ago, Teancum said: Your best post and quick to the point yet! Amen.
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Teancum said: Hey I was simply pointing out there are lots of meetings where woman don't attend. FYI I would be happy to see women have the preisthood and join in all the fun! Sorry, my post was directed to someone else. Sure, I'll join in the ...fun. Um, are you sure you wouldn't just like to make donuts with us genderfolk? Edited June 28, 2016 by cynth
smac97 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, cynth said: Quote Correct. There are untold numbers of LDS women who would be fantastic bishops and stake presidents and whatnot. And yet they are precluded from holding such positions because the Lord has limited the priesthood to men You mean because men's interpretation of what the Lord has intended has been imposed and controlled by men. (by the way, this is where you get your reputation as a sexist.) Again with the telling me what I mean. And now an explicit accusation of being sexist to boot. This is an LDS message board. I had taken certain circumstances to be given. Namely, that we are speaking from within the LDS paradigm. Juliann is, as I understand it, an active Latter-day Saint. I don't know about you. My remarks to Juliann were predicated on an assumption of certain frames of reference which she and I have in common. In other words, I honestly thought that Juliann believes in the truth claims of the LDS Church, including that Pres. Monson is the presiding high priest, that he and his counselors and the Twelve are prophets, seers, and revelators, and so on. I also took as a given that the position of the Church as given by the Brethren (including, inter alia, President Hinckley and Elder Oaks) is that the restriction on the priesthood is from God. I don't know why that is. There are obviously many, many women who could function quite well as priesthood holders. And yet we have nary a single instance in the history of the Church (or, I think, in the Bible) of women being ordained to the priesthood. We've had dozens of prophets and apostles, hundreds of general authorities all told, nary a one of which has ever taught (to my knowledge) that women can be ordained to the priesthood. Now, I suppose we can attribute that - as you have - to hatred of women. Institutionalized misogyny. Sexism of the highest order. Spanning almost 200 years of Church history. The leaders of the LDS Church categorically hate women and are complicit in depriving women of their God-given right to hold the priesthood. Yes, I guess we could say these things. Or . . . we can attribute it to something else. I have faith in the Restored Gospel. I believe the leaders of the Church are good and decent men. I do not think they collectively hate women and have conspired to subjugate them. I think the current batch of Brethren have given a lot of thought and discussion to women's issues in the Church. And not a one of them have said or even hinted that women are being unduly/unrighteously deprived of the priesthood. So I reject the appellation of "sexism" as it applies to . . . well, pretty much every observant Latter-day Saint who believes things along the lines as I have summarized above. Quote Quote I think it's possible to "speak up for women" without vilifying and excoriating men. Of course. why would you think otherwise? this thread has been about women not attending meetings solely on the bass of gender. How did you go from that to vilifying men? Well, here we have you publicly accusing me, someone you've just barely met online and don't know at all, of being sexist (I'm assuming, given the overall rancor of your posts, that you meant #3 here). And then there was Juliann, accusing some general males in this thread (but not me, I guess?) of harboring such repellant sentiments as this: "That would be unthinkable, wouldn't it....women being considered as necessary as men in running the church. Too awful for words." But whatever. You've publicly branded me a sexist. I deny it. I will refrain from reciprocating. Let's put aside the personal swipes and perhaps get back on topic. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97 2
Teancum Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, cynth said: Sorry, my post was directed to someone else. Sure, I'll join in the ...fun. Um, are you sure you wouldn't just like to make donuts with us genderfolk? I am happy to make donuts with you.
juliann Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 47 minutes ago, cynth said: A wise policy, Julian. I think I will be adopting it as well. SMAC is usually an upstanding guy. He has just taken a dislike to me. Moving on, I wonder is we need to start issuing trigger warnings.
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: I am happy to make donuts with you. you're on, Teancum, you're on!. . 1
bluebell Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 32 minutes ago, cynth said: You mean because men's interpretation of what the Lord has intended has been imposed and controlled by men. (by the way, this is where you get your reputation as a sexist.) Oh boy, I am 100% behind you on that!! Why yes, yes I did just say women would like to be treated as individuals, and I did say that on behalf of all women! What on earth is your point?!!! Well there you go then. Gender stereotyping at its finest. Didn't you say you weren't going to discuss this anymore? When does that kick in? You gave the impression in another thread that you were Catholic. Have I misunderstood? 1
Calm Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 1 hour ago, cynth said: As a female... You might want to change your gender setting in your profile. Bit confusing... 1
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 41 minutes ago, bluebell said: You gave the impression in another thread that you were Catholic. Have I misunderstood? What part of what I said could not be catholic? did I miss something? but yes, I am now. raised Mormon.
cynth Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 17 minutes ago, Calm said: You might want to change your gender setting in your profile. Bit confusing... Wow, I'm really sending false signals, sorry. yes, female. I will correct profile.
bluebell Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 Just now, cynth said: What part of what I said could not be catholic? did I miss something? but yes, I am now. raised Mormon. It just seems odd that a Catholic would have an issue with women not being allowed to do certain things in church. 1
Recommended Posts