Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No, Blame the misogyny in your damn words. 

Feel free to point to a single thing I said that is extremely prejudiced towards women. Not your highly biased and prejudiced spin on my words, but my actual words. Otherwise please retract this false accusation. 

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn’t make a single hurtful statement towards women. You’re just letting your own prejudice and bias towards men with more traditional views get the better of you. There’s a reason why you had to make up a bunch of completely false things about me in order to try and justify your false charge of misogyny. 

You hurt me.  You stated your opinion that equality for women is regrettable. It pokes at a regular experience that I have had throughout my life being expected to play second fiddle to men for the benefit of everyone else but me. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, MustardSeed said:

You stated your opinion that equality for women is regrettable.

Where did I say this?

[MustardSeed]

On 1/29/2023 at 7:06 AM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think that cost of broken marriages and families has been worth it for the sake of equality.

As if equality is to blame. The church was wrong.  So are you.  And you do harm digging in on this. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As if equality is to blame.

I wasn’t blaming the problem on equality. I believe in equality for women. I only used the word equality because that is the word Calm used in her argument that I was making a counter argument to. 

I believe that full equality for women is achievable without the two negative costs Calm pointed out, which I consider to be detrimental to society, including women. 

Edited February 2 by Grug the Neanderthal

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I believe in equality for women.

Good.  Glad to hear it.  Women have as much to contribute outside the home as men do, and men have as much to contribute to the home and family as women do. 
I’m glad you don’t blame divorce on women working.  I misunderstood you. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m glad you don’t blame divorce on women working.

I consider mothers leaving the home to work when they don’t absolutely have to be a significant contributing factor in the breakdown of the family, including a higher divorce rate. I believe that the breakdown of the family has had a very negative impacts on society, including women and girls.

I don’t consider mothers working outside the home to be the sole factor, nor am I claiming that it is the number one factor. I’m also not claiming that mothers working outside the home unnecessarily will automatically make the family completely fall apart.

I believe that the brethren were right to encourage mothers not work outside the home unless it was absolutely necessary, while still maintaining and upholding the agency of married couples to decide this for themselves. 

[teddyaware]

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Where did I say this?

Based on years of experience on this board, I can assure you that you’re wasting time and setting yourself up for endless frustration and heartache.  The reason? There are progressives on this board who would rather see the traditional nuclear family go down in flames worldwide, and thereafter be compelled to live lives of abject misery forever rather than ever have to admit there’s anything divinely inspired and praise worthy in the traditional patriarchal order model of marriage and family life taught in the New Testament. Trying to debate with people who believe the scriptures are expendable and the patriarchal order of the priesthood is unessential is a fool’s errand. Apparently, according to this newfangled way of thinking, the Apostle Paul is viewed as pathetic spiritual Luddite who failed to anticipate that the patriarchal order he upheld would eventually be overthrown.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head  of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (Ephesians 6)

[MustardSeed]

Some real ladies men here on this site. 

Edited February 2 by MustardSeed

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Some real ladies men here on this site. 

Glad you finally saw the light. 😀

[MustardSeed]

I need a shower. 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

There are progressives on this board who would rather see the traditional nuclear family go down in flames worldwide,

If you are claiming that the women who have spoken up in this thread do not treasure their traditional nuclear families (we all have them with very minor variations due to our specific situation as in my husband does a lot of ‘mom’ stuff due to my health limitations) as well as our extended ones and the ward families that welcome us, you are full of it.  We are taught in the gospel to follow our husbands in righteousness, to develop our talents in order to serve our families and communities, not to stay barefoot and ignorant and chained to the kitchen.

Would you, teddy, tell us to follow our husbands in rejecting the Church as a fraud if our husbands lost faith and pushed us to join them?

Edited February 2 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Based on years of experience on this board, I can assure you that you’re wasting time and setting yourself up for endless frustration and heartache.  The reason? There are progressives on this board who would rather see the traditional nuclear family go down in flames worldwide, and thereafter be compelled to live lives of abject misery forever rather than ever have to admit there’s anything divinely inspired and praise worthy in the traditional patriarchal order model of marriage and family life taught in the New Testament. Trying to debate with people who believe the scriptures are expendable and the patriarchal order of the priesthood is unessential is a fool’s errand. Apparently, according to this newfangled way of thinking, the Apostle Paul is viewed as pathetic spiritual Luddite who failed to anticipate that the patriarchal order he upheld would eventually be overthrown.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head  of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (Ephesians 6)

Yes, those scriptures are clearly a defense of the "traditional nuclear family" which came into vogue in *checks notes* the 1800s with the Industrial Revolution and if you look before that generally both men and women were both "breadwinners". The "traditional nuclear family" was exalted as an ideal in the ancient days of prehistory back in *checks notes* the 1950s.

History did not begin in the 1950s with the 1950s family structure the norm extending backwards throughout all of time until the evil feminists and liberals challenged it shortly after it was idealized.

Here is one summary of that myth: https://medium.com/exploring-history/the-1950s-and-the-myth-of-the-traditional-family-80d4032c044d

[John L]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Feel free to point to a single thing I said that is extremely prejudiced towards women. Not your highly biased and prejudiced spin on my words, but my actual words. Otherwise please retract this false accusation. 

Technology has helped push forward "equality" more than anything a woman has done in the past 150 years. The truth of the matter, if all electricity was  turned off and we had to live like our ancestors 200 years ago, we would end up back in the "traditional" man and woman roles that everyone seems to complain about. The majority of women would stay at home taking care of the house and children and older relatives while the men would go out to find food and barter for goods. 

Edited February 2 by John L

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

We are taught in the gospel to follow our husbands in righteousness

Yes, absolutely. But I would suspect that there are men and women on this board who believe that this teaching is false.

I can see it now. "How dare someone claim that wives are to follow their husbands in anything, that's oppressive to women! Equality demands that neither the husband or the wife follow each other (but the husband better do whatever the wife wants or he’s oppressive).”

6 hours ago, Calm said:

to develop our talents in order to serve our families and communities,

Yes, absolutely. And I don’t think Teddy or anyone else here disagrees with this. 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

not to stay barefoot and ignorant and chained to the kitchen.

No one here has said anything about women having to stay "barefoot and ignorant and chained to the kitchen." Someone does need to be responsible for preparing nutritious meals for the family, but that doesn’t constitute being "chained to the kitchen." 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Would you, teddy, tell us to follow our husbands in rejecting the Church as a fraud if our husbands lost faith and pushed us to join them?

I don’t see anything in his comment suggesting that this is what he would have faithful believing women do. 

Edited February 2 by Grug the Neanderthal

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, John L said:

Technology has helped push forward "equality" more than anything a woman has done in the past 150 years. The truth of the matter, if all electricity was  turned off and we had to live like our ancestors 200 years ago, we would end up back in the "traditional" man and woman roles that everyone seems to complain about. The majority of women would stay at home taking care of the house and children and older relatives while the men would go out to find food and barter for goods. 

What is this “traditional” you are talking about. We are hunters and gatherers by nature. Once agriculture hit, families worked farms together. Even at the start of the Industrial Revolution women worked in mills and mines even. 
 

 

The fetish some men have here about the domestic house wife, with a male bread winner existed in a relatively small fraction of the worlds population over an extremely short period of time - a blip even. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even at the start of the Industrial Revolution women worked in mills and mines

Yes, because they were compelled to. And so did little children. Both worked incredibly long hours under horrific working conditions. This exploitation of desperate women and children by greedy factor owners had horrible effects on society. 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Feel free to point to a single thing I said that is extremely prejudiced towards women. Not your highly biased and prejudiced spin on my words, but my actual words. Otherwise please retract this false accusation. 

I already carefully read each of your posts. it's littered through each of them. Including the one on this page where you reiterate your basic belief. Again. If you assume any degree of harm from a woman doing work that a man can not only do but be praised for, that is a form of sexism. As far as I can tell, you've softened your words, but haven't changed your message. So if you want an example, your last statement will do. I'm not about to quote every post you've made here. 

 

Again you're allowed to believe your message. I'm not going to stop you. But I'm equally allowed to call it out, point out it's problem, and describe what I see. 

It's still sexist. 

 

With luv, 

BD.

Edited February 2 by BlueDreams

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

If you assume any degree of harm from a woman doing work that a man can not only do but be praised for, that is a form of sexism.

Then I guess by this definition Calm is a misogynist and sexist, too. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even at the start of the Industrial Revolution women worked in mills and mines even. 

 

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, because they were compelled to. And so did little children. Both worked incredibly long hours under horrific working conditions.

And the men were exploited as much as the women working long hours under horrific conditions. None of which has anything to do with your fetishized idea of a domestic house wife. 

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

 

This exploitation of desperate women and children by greedy factor owners had horrible effects on society. 

Indeed. Though one could argue the same about the agricultural revolution. Perhaps more so. But we have indeed made progress since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and that progress didn’t magically stop at 1950, your fantasies not withstanding. 

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

I submit that you and I have extremely different ideas of what this means. 

[MustardSeed]

The Neanderthals support of teddys post is indication of attitude towards women.  Teddy uses the word progressive as if it’s a rotten piece of meat in his mouth.  Teddy notoriously hates.  I wouldn’t align myself with anything Teddy around these parts unless he became more compassionate.
 

Neanderthols timing, use of gaslighting, his beliefs about womens roles and the way he presents those beliefs is 80 years old and no longer has a place in polite company.  His insistence on dragging down Calm with him is pathetic and transparent.  If you want a friend, take Teddy and spit and chew about how women are these days.  That’s won’t bother me at all - I’m surrounded by men who think like you do.  It’s just that most of them know not to say it out loud. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I submit that you and I have extremely different ideas of what this means. 

I’m out of rep points.

given that the our leadership encourages women to speak and teach in church, I don’t know why any male member would quote Paul’s views of women to anyone and think they should mean anything to them.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

 

I was alerted that I've been referenced here. I haven't posted here since I left in July and said I wasn't going to post here any more, and I have never made a sock puppet. This isn't me, and I'm not sure why both of you think (or want to think) that it is. Stylistically, syntactically, and strategically, I don't think there is any similarity. 

Just for the record. Back to retirement!  

I will remove the reference. 

[BlueDreams]

38 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Then I guess by this definition Calm is a misogynist and sexist, too. 

You could simply ask Calm if she agrees with her interpretation of her words instead of taking them, running with them, and pushing more concordance than she's shown in this thread. It's not that hard....let me show you what that looks like:

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

If you are claiming that the women who have spoken up in this thread do not treasure their traditional nuclear families (we all have them with very minor variations due to our specific situation as in my husband does a lot of ‘mom’ stuff due to my health limitations) as well as our extended ones and the ward families that welcome us, you are full of it.  We are taught in the gospel to follow our husbands in righteousness, to develop our talents in order to serve our families and communities, not to stay barefoot and ignorant and chained to the kitchen.

Would you, teddy, tell us to follow our husbands in rejecting the Church as a fraud if our husbands lost faith and pushed us to join them?

Calm, I assume you're using follow as a form of wordplay for the end question. I take follow at the beginning of your paragraph to mean more "stand with, partner with, walk with, counsel with, work with" etc as opposed to a more literal definition such as "act according to" my husband or "do as my husband says/does as leader." Is that something you'd agree with?

If not, I would disagree with you on that, while still agreeing with the bulk.

@Grug the Neanderthalit doesn't hurt to check when someone who generally is disagreeing with you, says something you might technically agree with for clarity before insisting a) they see eye-to-eye and b) therefore should be tacked with the same problems in your argument.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 2 by BlueDreams