Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I hear it at school --- a lot. "Aw, you're gaslighting me!" (when they didn't turn it in, but insist that they did). 

Well, by all means, let’s allow teenagers to dictate to us the conventions of language usage. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If gaslighting no longer carries the potency it originally did, and if its explicit meaning has been blurred over time, then by definition, it has been robbed of much of its power and meaning. 

It LITERALLY drives me crazy when people rob a word of it's explicit meaning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For people who actually do experience gaslighting, using the word incorrectly does cause some damage.  Gaslighting is psychological manipulation and abuse and watering it down doesn't do much good for those who are dealing with it.

https://www.wellandgood.com/misuse-gaslighting/

Moreover, with all the baggage it carries, applying it to people who are not guilty of it (in its original sense) is potentially harmful to reputations and rancorously provocative. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It LITERALLY drives me crazy when people rob a word of it's explicit meaning. 

I saw what you did there. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Moreover, with all the baggage it carries, applying it to people who are not guilty of it (in its original sense) is potentially harmful to reputations and rancorously provocative. 

According to the new usage, applying the label to people who aren't gaslighting is itself a form of gaslighting.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, by all means, let’s allow teenagers to dictate to us the conventions of language usage. 

That is literally how this works. Us old folks die and then those teenagers grow up and complain about how their grandchildren are bastardizing the language. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have a specific attribution for the words you placed in quotation marks? 

I should be more careful in stating that this is from my memory so it may not be verbatim.  I am having a hard time finding the exact quote but I am fairly confident it is from one of the following sources that I read it:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/spencer-w-kimball-and-the-revelation-on-priesthood/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45226775.pdf

If I remember right, it was Joseph F. Smith that said it. 

Edit to add:

I think I may have found the quote I was thinking of -

Quote

Greater attention was focused on the Negro doctrine while Joseph F. Smith was president than at any time since the presidency of Brigham Young. While several changes are evident in Mormon teachings during his administration, President Smith relied very heavily on the rulings of his predecessors in determining the fundamentals of church policy 

("he did not know that we could do anything more in such cases than refer to the rulings of Presidents Young , Taylor , Woodruff and other Presidencies") 

- Council Minutes, 1908

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45226775.pdf

 

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is literally how this works. Us old folks die and then those teenagers grow up and complain about how their grandchildren are bastardizing the language. 

True…but there are significant negative ramifications when this happens with some labels.  Turning a medical term into something more generic may create confusion over an actual treatment or disorder and may diminish/be dismissive of the significant, even crippling effect that disorder has on an actual sufferer (I think the broader usage of phobia or panic attack I have seen at various times and places has done that).  People have a hard enough time understanding what is happening to those with significant illnesses, especially emotional ones, this adds unnecessary confusion IMO.  Teenagers wanting to up the drama in their speech may win out in the end by sheer numbers and unconscious (of the damage) persistence, but it is to the detriment IMO of actual sufferers of serious disorders and should be resisted when possible in these cases.  
 

The other case I think where modifying language should be tried to stop is when it normalizes criminal or otherwise dangerous behaviour.  The wider application of Nazi to non political categories makes it more a personality description than a political stance we should be wary of given its history and why people choose that political label for themselves (they want to reestablish a regime with those principles).  I have also seen “rape” being applied to verbal behaviour or mental manipulation and I believe that screws up understanding of what happens to victims of both in favor of shock value.  There is enough confusion over what is rape and what is consent, we don’t need to add more layers to it.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

True…but there are significant negative ramifications when this happens with some labels.  Turning a medical term into something more generic may create confusion over an actual treatment or disorder and may diminish/be dismissive of the significant, even crippling effect that disorder has on an actual sufferer (I think the broader usage of phobia or panic attack I have seen at various times and places has done that).  People have a hard enough time understanding what is happening to those with significant illnesses, especially emotional ones, this adds unnecessary confusion IMO.  Teenagers wanting to up the drama in their speech may win out in the end by sheer numbers and unconscious (of the damage) persistence, but it is to the detriment IMO of actual sufferers of serious disorders and should be resisted when possible in these cases.  
 

The other case I think where modifying language should be tried to stop is when it normalizes criminal or otherwise dangerous behaviour.  The wider application of Nazi to non political categories makes it more a personality description than a political stance we should be wary of given its history and why people choose that political label for themselves (they want to reestablish a regime with those principles).  I have also seen “rape” being applied to verbal behaviour or mental manipulation and I believe that screws up understanding of what happens to victims of both in favor of shock value.  There is enough confusion over what is rape and what is consent, we don’t need to add more layers to it.

I don’t disagree on any point really. And by all means, try and fight it. I am merely pointing out the futility. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

True…but there are significant negative ramifications when this happens with some labels.  Turning a medical term into something more generic may create confusion over an actual treatment or disorder and may diminish/be dismissive of the significant, even crippling effect that disorder has on an actual sufferer (I think the broader usage of phobia or panic attack I have seen at various times and places has done that).  People have a hard enough time understanding what is happening to those with significant illnesses, especially emotional ones, this adds unnecessary confusion IMO.  Teenagers wanting to up the drama in their speech may win out in the end by sheer numbers and unconscious (of the damage) persistence, but it is to the detriment IMO of actual sufferers of serious disorders and should be resisted when possible in these cases.  
 

The other case I think where modifying language should be tried to stop is when it normalizes criminal or otherwise dangerous behaviour.  The wider application of Nazi to non political categories makes it more a personality description than a political stance we should be wary of given its history and why people choose that political label for themselves (they want to reestablish a regime with those principles).  I have also seen “rape” being applied to verbal behaviour or mental manipulation and I believe that screws up understanding of what happens to victims of both in favor of shock value.  There is enough confusion over what is rape and what is consent, we don’t need to add more layers to it.

 

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t disagree on any point really. And by all means, try and fight it. I am merely pointing out the futility. 

I mean look at words like thee and thou. The way we use them now is a complete bastardization of their original use. Additionally English no longer has a way to distinguish between the familiar and the formal. Hither thither and thon I’m sure were very useful to English speakers of yesteryear but we trudge on none the less. 
 

We both lose language and add to it with every passing year. Like the tides, there isn’t much an individual can do to stop it. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/26/2022 at 9:12 PM, kimpearson said:

I have been thinking about a number of issues that cause most of the faith crisis or hard discussions in the Church.  I have thought about Brad Wilcox's attempts to give explanations to those issues.  I have recently been listening to Jared Halverson's explanation of those issues.  In my opinion, neither Brad nor Jared, give explanations that in the following words of Joseph Smith tastes sweet.

"This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which are given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more." (King Follet sermon)

So I would like to present some of those issues, what I see as the facts the Church claims on the issue and my views.  Would you please share your views on the issue and how you find an explanation that "tastes good" to you.

Women and the priesthood

Facts -

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it

My views

• Women not being ordained to the priesthood appears to be the result of thousands of years of cultural indoctrination with no indication that God was ever behind it.
• Leaders of the Church don't dare change anything unless they get a revelation from God.  Only President Kimball appears to have been willing of recent prophets to put the work in to get such a revelation.
• Our cultural conditioning conditions us to believe that men and women could never function smoothly together is a bishopric, stake presidency or high council.
• A very significant portion of the male active members of the Church would really struggle if women were ordained to the priesthood.
• Other churches have demonstrated beyond any doubt that women are capable of leading congregations and church leadership.
• I am not comfortable and feel nothing sweet tasting with any explanation I have ever been given as to why true doctrine is that women shouldn't be ordained to the priesthood.

Your views

I would love to hear your views on this issue and how you find a sweet taste with any explanation that has been given.

 

More issues to come but let us address them one at a time.

First, why would any woman want the priesthood?  Most of the time it involves a lot of meetings and time away from family. 
 

Second, the scriptures do not mention the ordination of woman.  The church is following the pattern of the scriptures.  If a change is to come, it can only be by revelation.  It would occur by no other way.  That is the reason for the existence of prophets who lead the church.  God does not run the church by special interest groups who fight for their own pet causes. 
 

Frankly I would love a revelation the releases the men from the priesthood and gives all of the responsibility to women.  As long as exaltation is still there at the end, it’s all good to me.  
 

I also believe for every woman out there who wants ordination, the are at least 5 who are praying that it does not happen.  They have enough on their plate already.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The term that frustrates me in this regard is "cancel culture".  Every time I read it I just see someone who is upset because someone else is disagreeing with them.

It is people and demographics who have never been overtly ignored before suddenly realizing that others can ignore them and not liking it. Everyone else is laughing at their naïveté.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

First, why would any woman want the priesthood?  Most of the time it involves a lot of meetings and time away from family. 
 

Second, the scriptures do not mention the ordination of woman.  The church is following the pattern of the scriptures.  If a change is to come, it can only be by revelation.  It would occur by no other way.  That is the reason for the existence of prophets who lead the church.  God does not run the church by special interest groups who fight for their own pet causes. 
 

Frankly I would love a revelation the releases the men from the priesthood and gives all of the responsibility to women.  As long as exaltation is still there at the end, it’s all good to me.  
 

I also believe for every woman out there who wants ordination, the are at least 5 who are praying that it does not happen.  They have enough on their plate already.

I would miss not being able to give blessings.

[carbon dioxide]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would miss not being able to give blessings.

Ok but that is like 1% of the time you exercise the priesthood for.  95% of the time you are in meetings.  If women get the priesthood and men are released from it, think of all the free time we get

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Ok but that is like 1% of the time you exercise the priesthood for.  95% of the time you are in meetings.  If women get the priesthood and men are released from it, think of all the free time we get

I know Relief Society Presidents that would big to differ that not holding the Priesthood means you have a lot more free time.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I know Relief Society Presidents that would big to differ that not holding the Priesthood means you have a lot more free time.

That is because women have their own separate callings.  Getting the priesthood would just add more to their plate.  Releasing the men from the priesthood would take off things from the plate for men.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That is because women have their own separate callings.  Getting the priesthood would just add more to their plate.  Releasing the men from the priesthood would take off things from the plate for men.

What would be added to the RS president’s plate if she was ordained?

What responsibility does the EQ president have that the RS president doesn’t?

Edited March 2, 2022 by bluebell

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I mean look at words like thee and thou. The way we use them now is a complete bastardization of their original use. Additionally English no longer has a way to distinguish between the familiar and the formal. Hither thither and thon I’m sure were very useful to English speakers of yesteryear but we trudge on none the less. 
 

We both lose language and add to it with every passing year. Like the tides, there isn’t much an individual can do to stop it. 

I get that to some degree. Language ebbs and flows to some degree...but it doesn't make it less annoying when the term ends up holding a lot of necessary meaning and then gets watered down to practically mean nothing but a random flippant sentiment. 

It happens a lot with psychological terms (OCD being a person who's a little more organized or clean, bipolar being a little erratic, etc) 

But in this case it leads to a random non-ending loop of accusations. Kim's post about "gaslighting" made me look back at my own and wonder what if I said what was being mentioned. Does that mean he was gaslighting me because he accused those who'd responded for gaslighting him. And if I then accused him of gaslighting me because I was uncertain about how my post came off would that then be gaslighting him once again because I'm making him question how he's being perceived. Should I say you're gaslighting calm because the issued is being poo-poohed as not that serious? At that point, what does gaslighting even mean beyond "you're making me uncomfortable" or "I'm unsatisfied with how this convo is going." It may be inevitable, no one has control of the tides of language, but it doesn't make it less off-putting to have a word used flippantly with something that in my world is still a very serious claim. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

why would any woman want the priesthood?

Why would any man want the priesthood?  Seriously look at what you are saying.  It is a joke considering what honor we pay to the priesthood itself, how we talk of it as almost the ultimate blessing.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why would any man want the priesthood?  Seriously look at what you are saying.  It is a joke considering what honor we pay to the priesthood itself, how we talk of it as almost the ultimate blessing.

Yes it is a great blessing but the greatest blessing of all is exaltation.  Faithful women who are not ordained to the priesthood get the exact same exaltation as men who have the priesthood.  If women are given the priesthood, their exaltation will be the exact same exaltation as faithful women who did not have it and died.  It is not like there is some bonus exaltation that is secretly being withheld from women and only given to men.  I just don't get the motivation for ordination.  They gain virtually nothing eternally from it.  It seems to me the only thing they gain is to satisfy some selfish personal need out of being ordained.  Which is exactly opposite of what the priesthood is about.  If God wants women to be ordained, I am fine with it.   If my wife was ordained,  I would let my wife do all the priesthood ordinances for family members as she probably would get more out of it than I do.  Women tend to get more out of birthdays, anniversaries, and other big events of the kids. 

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I mean look at words like thee and thou. The way we use them now is a complete bastardization of their original use. Additionally English no longer has a way to distinguish between the familiar and the formal. Hither thither and thon I’m sure were very useful to English speakers of yesteryear but we trudge on none the less. 
 

We both lose language and add to it with every passing year. Like the tides, there isn’t much an individual can do to stop it. 

We had an interesting discussion at work about the word “grooming.” In an agile software process we “groom” the backlog in order to prioritize and ready tasks for developers to work on them. We decided to forgo the use of “grooming” in favor of “backlog refinement” because of the negative connotation of the former. Just an example of how a perfectly acceptable word can fall out of favor. For the record, both I and another manager who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined with several others who were uncomfortable with using the word. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Peacefully

[Rain]

On 2/28/2022 at 10:43 AM, BlueDreams said:

1. ...I'm not sold on ordination like a man is what that "itch" is leading me. What I want is more discourse and revelation on priestesshood....or in other words the power wrought in women that we are endowed with and receive. The more I see and experience this the less I itch.  

Yes!

[Peacefully]

17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes it is a great blessing but the greatest blessing of all is exaltation.  Faithful women who are not ordained to the priesthood get the exact same exaltation as men who have the priesthood.  If women are given the priesthood, their exaltation will be the exact same exaltation as faithful women who did not have it and died.  It is not like there is some bonus exaltation that is secretly being withheld from women and only given to men.  I just don't get the motivation for ordination.  They gain virtually nothing eternally from it.  It seems to me the only thing they gain is to satisfy some selfish personal need out of being ordained.  Which is exactly opposite of what the priesthood is about.  If God wants women to be ordained, I am fine with it.   If my wife was ordained,  I would let my wife do all the priesthood ordinances for family members as she probably would get more out of it than I do.  Women tend to get more out of birthdays, anniversaries, and other big events of the kids. 

Well, we do get to waltz right into the temple, so there’s that.😜

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

just don't get the motivation for ordination. 

Why don’t you go ask Abraham why he gave so much for the right of the fathers?

Seriously, if you have so little love for the priesthood, it is unfortunate it is being wasted on you.

[Rain]

On 2/28/2022 at 9:53 PM, kimpearson said:

Well I do have to say I didn't quite expect the general response I got.  The following are just my views and opinions on your responses.

• Most of you either don't believe or won't admit there are any uncomfortable truths currently taught as truth in the Church about women and priesthood.  Do you believe there are any other  uncomfortable truths taught?

 

• Based on responses, anybody who is uncomfortable with any thing taught as truth related to women and the priesthood in the gospel is wrong and has no basis for such feeling.  So I guess many of you believe there is no need to even address this as it isn't an issue.

 

• Many of  you have no problem with gas lighting.  You knew exactly what I was saying about women not presiding over men in priesthood callings but instead you sought to convince me I was wrong.  No deacon is presided over by a women in the priesthood, no teacher is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no priest is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no elder is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no high priest is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no seventy is presided over by a woman in the priesthood, no apostle is presided over by a woman in the priesthood.  No woman is presided over by another woman in the priesthood as the presiding priesthood authority over women is the bishop.  No man or child who doesn't hold any priesthood is presided over in the priesthood by a woman as the presiding priesthood holder of unordained men and children is the bishop.  All the talk about primary presidents and women presiding in meetings is an attempt to gaslight my original statement.

 

• Some of you gas lighted my statements that there are no scriptural or authoritative explanation of why women can't hold the priesthood by asking me for evidence when I am telling you I can't find anything so there is nothing to offer.  If you thought my statement was wrong, the only way to show I am wrong is find scriptures or authoritative statements that give a clear explanation why women can't hold the priesthood.  Saying the Godhead is all made up of men is not an explanation of anything about why anyone doesn't hold the priesthood.  Its a statement of who does hold the priesthood.

 

• I am curious if any of you have talked to anyone troubled about women and the priesthood.  Have the arguments you have used in my discussion comforted such people and answered all their questions?

Thanks for all the responses.

You may want to read the post history by half the people on this thread responding to you before you make those accusations.