A boycott and a birthday - Women's boycott this Sunday

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

That's a misleading statement- not your fault unless you actually researched it.   Obviously shocking but not accurate.

It was a state by state thing.

It was legal in many states including CA and Utah in the 1800's.

That 1974 thing made it federally legal.   So your quoted wording is technically incorrect- not really your fault though.

It also made it so that banks were forced to follow the law, something they were not always interested in doing.  The First Women's Bank of California was founded in 1976 because even in that state where it had been legal for over 100 years, women were still struggling to not be discriminated against in banking.

"In March of 1976, when it opened for business, the time seemed so ripe and circumstances so supportive of a women’s bank. Up to then, many loan officers believed they could not put their trust in a woman’s not getting pregnant. They thought they could not trust a divorced woman. Some banks went so far as to have women sign a stipulation that they would practice birth control for the duration of a loan. Though laws were passed in the early Seventies prohibiting the use of separate credit standards for women, there was still a vacuum of trust for women in March of 1976. The Women’s Bank was created in an effort to fill it."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"When were women allowed to have bank accounts in California?

 

1862

In 1862, California became the first state to allow women to open a bank account under their own name, regardless of whether or not they were married.Mar 25, 2021"

Ok, I guess it was regional, state by state.

Shocking!

There is a huge difference between being legally allowed to get a checking account, and having a legal right to open a checking account. Serving alcohol is legal, but I don’t have a legal right to demand alcohol from an establishment that chooses not to serve alcohol. 

[Smiley McGee]

On 3/18/2024 at 8:54 AM, pogi said:

On the Birthday of the Relief Society, Sister (why isn't the Relief Society presidency referred to as "President...") J. Anette Dennis said the following:

Her reasoning:

Do you agree that the Church tops the list of church's for power and authority given to women?

I know that President Oaks gave a talk which alluded to the idea that women get the priesthood in temples, but is this an actual ordination to priesthood authority?  If so, which priesthood, Melchizedek or Aaronic?   If women truly hold the priesthood as alluded to, why can't they hold any office?  

What kind of authority is it they hold if it can only be exercised under the authority of a man? 

Why do men preside in the home?  Because, we are taught, that they hold the priesthood.  So, which is it?  I thought women hold the priesthood too?  It feels disingenuous to suggest that women hold authority in our church like they do in other churches, when they can't hold office and can't ever preside over a man like they can and do in other churches.  

Kristine Haglund, a writer and former editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, responded by "noting that the church’s patriarchal structure bars women from its central decision-making structure in their local congregations and church headquarters."

 

 

“There is no member of the Mormon dialogue and discussion board that I’m aware of that is as faith promoting and enjoyable to talk to as @Smiley McGee. Sure, other posters make real efforts to make this board enjoyable, but according to how I define words, I really am the best.”

There. A position as useful and defensible as Sister-President Dennis’. 

Edited March 20, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[gopher]

On 3/17/2024 at 3:10 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Zero absences noted.  Sister X gave a banger of a talk on that Italian pastor who got a BoM and a testimony in WWI days.  Sister Y did a musical number that brought tears to people's eyes.  Organist & conductor were the same gender they always were.  Ward is full of working and retired professionals, lots of folks savvy in matters of social media and online presences.  

It's hard for angry activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare.  

Looks like you have been vindicated!  From the NY Times yesterday:

Quote

 

In Seattle, a therapist and lifelong church member named Kierstyn Kremer Howes was awake with her newborn in the middle of the night when she read about the removal of women from the stand in Ms. Watkins Jensen’s region.

“I was just like, ‘I’m so tired of this,’” she recalled.

“You go to church and all you see are male leaders, and all the people we talk about in the scriptures are male,” Ms. Kremer Howes said. “Everything good and glorious and wonderful is in the male voice or looks male.”

She dashed off a fiery opinion essay (“I call it pissy, my mom calls it saucy”) calling for L.D.S. women to stay home from church on March 17, the anniversary of the Relief Society.

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 3/18/2024 at 11:28 AM, pogi said:

Thanks for your thoughtful response, and I agree with most of what you said.  One point of disagreement (more with Sheri Dew than you):

I disagree with this because any person (not just those who have access to priesthood power) has the privilege, opportunity and right as a child of God to "receive revelation, be blessed and aided by the ministering of angels, be strengthened to resist temptation, be protected, and be enlightened...all without any mortal intermediary."  None of that has anything to do with access to priesthood authority.  Joseph had ministering of angels and revelations, etc. long before priesthood was restored to the earth, for one obvious and quick example. 

No priesthood necessary there.  I feel like a lot of effort is being made to create the impression that women in the church do have special authority or power, when really, they have as much right to these things as any non-member. 

As far as the home goes, I was always taught that it did.  Being a parent is required for one, and you are right that a women can preside in the home when a male parent is not present, but the parent who holds the priesthood always presides in the home by right of that priesthood - same is true at church.  As you note women can preside in certain callings, but only because a man lets them borrow their priesthood authority.  So again, it all points back to priesthood when presiding is concerned.     At least that is what I was always taught.   Why else are we taught that men preside in the home?

In terms of presiding in the home, it seems to me that the next to quotes are contradictory:

Vs.

President Oaks rightly notes that her mother only presided once his father passed away.   That is not "equal footing" in terms of presiding. 

I don't think it is an equivalent comparison though because men don't have that authority "under the authority" of another human, they hold the keys and authority independent of any other human and can act independently within the bounds of the keys.   For example, men don't need permission or direction to give priesthood blessings once they are endowed with those keys. 

Just some things to think about. 

 

Joseph was able to receive revelation previous to his ordination because he was the one through whom the last dispensation would be initiated.

Through the Priesthood received in the Temple women DO have special authority to receive revelation that non-members and the unendowed do not have. That is what Pres. Nelson and others have been trying to get across to the membership without being too specific. Even apostate fundamentalists understand the gift given in the endowment better than a lot of members.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

not worth it. Nevermind

Edited March 23, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Joseph was able to receive revelation previous to his ordination because he was the one through whom the last dispensation would be initiated.

Through the Priesthood received in the Temple women DO have special authority to receive revelation that non-members and the unendowed do not have. That is what Pres. Nelson and others have been trying to get across to the membership without being too specific. Even apostate fundamentalists understand the gift given in the endowment better than a lot of members.

That is not doctrinal.  Anyone can pray and receive revelation. See Moroni’s promise as one simple example.  See also Biblical teachings on prayer about asking and receiving.  

Even unendowed children, we are told, can can pray and receive revelation and ministering of angels, etc. 

According to the church any of Gods children can receive revelation.  It is defined as - “Communication from God to His children on earth” and it comes through “the light of Christ” which all of Gods children have, among other means (the priesthood is not mentioned as a means).

 

Edited March 23, 2024 by pogi

[ZealouslyStriving]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is not doctrinal.  Anyone can pray and receive revelation. See Moroni’s promise as one simple example.  See also Biblical teachings on prayer about asking and receiving.  

Even unendowed children, we are told, can can pray and receive revelation and ministering of angels, etc. 

According to the church any of Gods children can receive revelation.  It is defined as - “Communication from God to His children on earth” and it comes through “the light of Christ” which all of Gods children have, among other means (the priesthood is not mentioned as a means).

 

The gift of the Endowment is about more than just the still small voice or pure intelligence communicated to your Spirit.

Read and really ponder Pres. Nelson recent teachings on the Endowment.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

Looks like you have been vindicated!  From the NY Times yesterday:

 

Good for finding her own description of her reaction.

I am not sure vindicated is the right word to use though when it is still important to let people describe their own feelings and not impute them with such, even if you get it right from time to time.  It’s a poor habit to get into.

Edited March 23, 2024 by Calm

[gopher]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:38 PM, Calm said:

Good for finding her own description of her reaction.

I am not sure vindicated is the right word to use though when it is still important to let people describe their own feelings and not impute them with such, even if you get it right from time to time.  It’s a poor habit to get into.

I was just having fun since I read the reactions to LoudmouthMormon's comment.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I was just having fun since I read the reactions to LoudmouthMormon's comment.

I figured. I was feeling pedantic, I guess. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Let's let LDS women speak for themselves: