Something Troubling in Sunday School

[_Yoda]

So you're not saying I'm not saying the women not having the priesthood is not more wrong then slavery not being wrong? Just kidding.

I read it time and again and all I can make of it is you seem to be saying I am somehow saying while women not having the priesthood is wrong, slavery is not more wrong. Or if that is not he case, are you suggesting slavery is no less wrong than women not having the priesthood? I fear you've confused us both.

Stem--

Let me see if I can put this into perspective.

1. You are offended because you felt that Consig was stating that women not having the priesthood in the Church was as grossly wrong as slavery.

If this is what Consig was stating, I would also be offended. However, I don't think that is what is happening here. Consig, Just Me, and others have made valid comparisons between the wrongs of slavery and the wrongs of sexism. I don't think that anyone has stated that the comparison is completely one to one. It isn't. However, there are similarities that can validly be explored.

If everyone can agree that:

1. Sexism and racism is not a perfect one to one comparison.

2. There are, however, valid parallels between the two which can be openly discussed.

Then, I think we can effectively move on with the discussion. ;-)

[_Blixa]

Can we get an English teacher referee in here?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Stem, I'll make this quick since I'm preparing a lecture.

It is often very difficult to understand your posts.

Partly, I think the difficulty is related to the "aw shucks" persona you sometimes affect (and recently seemed to have dropped much of?). Partly, I think it has to do with your reading comprehension; you seem to read things too fast, or in "chunks," or in some other way which misses the boat. And partly, I think it has to do with your often impenetrable writing style. I'm not sure what the problem is on this one: sometimes it seems like you're just writing things really fast and not paying attention (there are often words left out of sentences, for example) and sometimes it seems like you have a great deal of difficulty constructing sentences.

In this thread you have seriously misunderstood consiglieri and also seem to be unaware of the relationship between First Wave Feminism and the Abolition Movement: the comparison of the position of women and slaves is a long used rhetorical trope that has never meant to suggest the two forms of oppression were somehow exactly the same. The American women's rights movement in large part grew out of the anti-slavery societies. The relationship between feminism and anti-racism is a complicated one, however, and beyond the time I have to spare at the moment to detail for you. Suffice it to say, there is a long history behind the metaphor consig and others were referencing here.

You also conflate all historical forms of slavery with the international slave trade which made such an impact on American history. Thus, you present a confused understanding of the relation of race and slavery.

Like I said, I'm pressed for time. I hope you don't think I'm merely condescending to you here, I'm trying sincerely to give you some useful criticism. I have considered doing this for quite some time now, frankly, because I've often been very puzzled by your posts and replies.

[_MsJack]

Now that we're all part of the same group experience, perhaps we can discuss the comment my friend made about being a woman sitting in a chair with a bunch of men's penises pointed at her head.

Honestly, consiglieri? Under ordinary circumstances, I would find your friend's sentiment vaguely misandrist. Maybe it's just me, but there's something about fixating on the shape of someone's anatomy like that which strikes me as rather ugly and dehumanizing. As if it's not a person anymore, it's a penis. I don't like that.

However, these weren't ordinary circumstances; you said that your friend is a sexual abuse victim. So I think your story helps to illustrate precisely why both genders should be available to perform ordinances. It probably would have been less awkward and uncomfortable for your friend if she could have been surrounded by women instead.

[_Yoda]

Now that we're all part of the same group experience, perhaps we can discuss the comment my friend made about being a woman sitting in a chair with a bunch of men's penises pointed at her head.

Honestly, consiglieri? Under ordinary circumstances, I would find your friend's sentiment vaguely misandrist. Maybe it's just me, but there's something about fixating on the shape of someone's anatomy like that which strikes me as rather ugly and dehumanizing. As if it's not a person anymore, it's a penis. I don't like that.

However, these weren't ordinary circumstances; you said that your friend is a sexual abuse victim. So I think your story helps to illustrate precisely why both genders should be available to perform ordinances. It probably would have been less awkward and uncomfortable for your friend if she could have been surrounded by women instead.

This is also why mixed gender bishoprics would be extremely effective. Women could confess sexual sins to other women; men could confess to men.

Here is an off-shoot question, but I think it helps put things in perspective. Men--How comfortable would you feel confessing a sexual sin to a female bishop?

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow---

Are the doctrines, policies, history, and actual behavior of the LDS Church and/or its leaders relevant to the truth claims of the Church and the claims of its leaders to be prophets, seers, and revelators?

Why or why not?

That rabbit-trailin' DJ. Sorry bub, I ain't biting for your own amusement.

[_Darth J]

Men--How comfortable would you feel confessing a sexual sin to a female bishop?

[_stemelbow]

Stem--

Let me see if I can put this into perspective.

1. You are offended because you felt that Consig was stating that women not having the priesthood in the Church was as grossly wrong as slavery.

Not really.

If this is what Consig was stating, I would also be offended. However, I don't think that is what is happening here. Consig, Just Me, and others have made valid comparisons between the wrongs of slavery and the wrongs of sexism. I don't think that anyone has stated that the comparison is completely one to one. It isn't. However, there are similarities that can validly be explored.

The way it was stated in the OP, no I don't think Consig made a valid comparison at all. I find his attempted comparison ridiculous and absurd.

If everyone can agree that:

1. Sexism and racism is not a perfect one to one comparison.

2. There are, however, valid parallels between the two which can be openly discussed.

Then, I think we can effectively move on with the discussion. ;-)

we can move on without the agreement if y'all like. I'm wondering why people are so defensive on this. It was a terrible comparison to make--a terrible thing to put down. I realize that terrible things are said here, but I find it fine for me to call people out. That is afterall, what most posters here are trying to do to LDS folks and LDS posters.

[_Morley]

Can we get an English teacher referee in here?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Stem, I'll make this quick since I'm preparing a lecture.

It is often very difficult to understand your posts.

Partly, I think the difficulty is related to the "aw shucks" persona you sometimes affect (and recently seemed to have dropped much of?). Partly, I think it has to do with your reading comprehension; you seem to read things too fast, or in "chunks," or in some other way which misses the boat. And partly, I think it has to do with your often impenetrable writing style. I'm not sure what the problem is on this one: sometimes it seems like you're just writing things really fast and not paying attention (there are often words left out of sentences, for example) and sometimes it seems like you have a great deal of difficulty constructing sentences.

In this thread you have seriously misunderstood consiglieri and also seem to be unaware of the relationship between First Wave Feminism and the Abolition Movement: the comparison of the position of women and slaves is a long used rhetorical trope that has never meant to suggest the two forms of oppression were somehow exactly the same. The American women's rights movement in large part grew out of the anti-slavery societies. The relationship between feminism and anti-racism is a complicated one, however, and beyond the time I have to spare at the moment to detail for you. Suffice it to say, there is a long history behind the metaphor consig and others were referencing here.

You also conflate all historical forms of slavery with the international slave trade which made such an impact on American history. Thus, you present a confused understanding of the relation of race and slavery.

Like I said, I'm pressed for time. I hope you don't think I'm merely condescending to you here, I'm trying sincerely to give you some useful criticism. I have considered doing this for quite some time now, frankly, because I've often been very puzzled by your posts and replies.

Amen.

[_why me]

What age should girls get the priesthood?

Girls should get the priesthood two years later than boys so as to always keep fresh in their minds their subservience.



Sort of like missions.



All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think that you missed the boat on this one. Why is the age limit for women at 21? For one simple reason: to allow them to get married to a return missionary. The male returns at 21. The women can leave at 21. See the point? Eternal marriage Trump's missionary work for young ladies.

[_Chap]

...
Like I said, I'm pressed for time. I hope you don't think I'm merely condescending to you here, I'm trying sincerely to give you some useful criticism. I have considered doing this for quite some time now, frankly, because I've often been very puzzled by your posts and replies.

But the nice thing about stemelbow is that if you say to him something like 'so are you saying X?' he will give you an honest answer. I agree (and so has he on occasion) that he often expresses himself in a quite unnecessarily obscure manner, which is a pity.