Clever wordplay to downplay priesthood sexism? ...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is a tangent from the SWK bio thread. This coming year, the MP quorums and Relief Society will be studying the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. I always liked SWK; he was one of my favorite Church presidents (his apparent obsession with sexual sin, notwithstanding). Anyhoo, the Church News recently had several articles about SWK, as a way of introducing next year's study guide. In one article entitled "Lengthen Your Stride," Church News staff writer Scott Lloyd (a regular poster on FAIR) wrote of the many developments during SWK's presidency. One such is the following:

"A new revelation granting the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy Church members without regard for race or color." (emphasis added).

Later in the article, a similar statement is used:

"The 1978 revelation extending priesthood blessings to all worthy Church members was followed shortly by the establishment of the Church in [African] nations ...." (emphasis added).

This struck me as odd because, though technically true, I had always heard the revelation described as granting all men, particularly black men, the opportunity to receive the priesthood. Indeed, Declaration No. 2 in the D&C states that "by revelation [the Lord] has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood ...." (emphasis added). The declaration also states that such men and "his loved ones" can now enjoy the temple blessings, etc; however, to me, the big point of the revelation is that black men now could receive the priesthood -- the fact that black men's families would receive all blessings is a natural by-product of the change -- but THE real point of the revelation was to give black men the priesthood.

Notice how this language in Scott's article downplays the fact women do not receive the priesthood (by emphasizing "the blessings" rather than the priesthood itself, which only men can obtain). I thought perhaps this was Scott's clever prose, rather than a concious effort by the Church to emphasize the blessings of the priesthood, rather than the priesthood itself.

I was wrong. Perusing the new SWK manual, I read this on p. 238:

Thoughout his service as President of the Church, [SWK] received revelations to guide the Saints. The most well known of all these revelations came in June 1978, when the Lord revealed to him and also to his brethren in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that the blessings of the priesthood, which had been restricted to some, could now be available to all worthy members of the Church. (emphasis added).

The only mention in the manual of black men receiving the priesthood is on p. xxxiii in the introductory chapter, and then, only because it is a quote of GBH about the meeting in the temple concerning the revelation.

Again, this way of wording things is technically correct: a by-product of the revelation is that all persons, including black families, can receive all priesthood and temple blessings, but the major point of the revelation (at least in the years after 1978) was that black men could now receive the priesthood. Women, whether white or black, are still banned from receiving the priesthood. Perhaps this recent wording in the Church News and SWK manual is a concerted effort to downplay that continuing ban?

[_harmony]

Perhaps women were less valiant in the pre-existence.

[_wenglund]

To me, there are at least two types of sexism:

a) illegitimately and irrationally discriminating between the sexes.
b) illegitimately and irrationally viewing things as sexists or in sexist terms.

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Rollo Tomasi]

To me, there are at least two types of sexism:

a) illegitimately and irrationally discriminating between the sexes.
b) illegitimately and irrationally viewing things as sexists or in sexist terms.

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

Certainly possible. But I do see a real difference in the clever language the Church now chooses to (in my opinion) downplay the continuing priesthood ban on women.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Okay

I cannot resist making another smart ass comment here..so I apologize now

Racism
Sexism
Feminism
Mormonism

Dumbism.....I know this is not a word
Stupidism.....I know this is not a word
smartism.....I know this is not a owrd
elitism
Gayism........I know this is not a word


Racism...Feminism..Elitism....Mormonism....Can't have smartism/intellectism in the Church

I am trying to think of ism words

They simply will not and do not go together...

We need to get rid of the ism's but that is impossible in any organized religion...especially the LDS where the very foudations was built on racism and anti-femisism

[_wenglund]

To me, there are at least two types of sexism:

a) illegitimately and irrationally discriminating between the sexes.
b) illegitimately and irrationally viewing things as sexists or in sexist terms.

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

Certainly possible. But I do see a real difference in the clever language the Church now chooses to (in my opinion) downplay the continuing priesthood ban on women.

I think it not only posssible, but quite probable. The hyper-critical and sexists lense (type "b") through which you seemingly view the Church causes you to illegitimately and irrationally view perfectly generic statements like "extend priesthood blessings to all" in sexists terms (i.e. as a "clever word play to downplay priesthood sexism"). You are imagining sexism where sexism didn't occur, and by so doing, you are ironically sexist.

Will you now attempt to "downplay" it? We'll see. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mercury]

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

I wonder why the herd didn't cull you at birth

[_harmony]

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

I wonder why the herd didn't cull you at birth

ROTFL. I don't know why I find this so funny, but I do.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think it not only posssible, but quite probable. The hyper-critical and sexists lense (type "b") through which you seemingly view the Church causes you to illegitimately and irrationally view perfectly generic statements like "extend priesthood blessings to all" in sexists terms (i.e. as a "clever word play to downplay priesthood sexism").

I was simply making an observation about recent language in Church publications that, on its face, avoids the gender-based qualification to receive the priesthood. We all know how PR-sensitive the Church can be, and I read this new language as clever wordplay to avoid discussion of this gender-based qualification.

[_wenglund]

I think it not only posssible, but quite probable. The hyper-critical and sexists lense (type "b") through which you seemingly view the Church causes you to illegitimately and irrationally view perfectly generic statements like "extend priesthood blessings to all" in sexists terms (i.e. as a "clever word play to downplay priesthood sexism").

I was simply making an observation about recent language in Church publications that, on its face, avoids the gender-based qualification to receive the priesthood. We all know how PR-sensitive the Church can be, and I read this new language as clever wordplay to avoid discussion of this gender-based qualification.

Yes, and I am simply making an observation about your observation. We all know how hyper-critical you are of the Church (actually, "we all" don't really know that, but I thought that if you felt it okay to irrationally marshal everyone behind your biased presupposition, then turn-about would be fair play), and how quick you seem to be in making men offenders for a word, and I saw your mischaracterizing a straightforward statement of belief as "a word play", and your irrationally seeing "gender-based qualifications" where none were intended, as, ironically, sexism--which, ironically, you seem now to be downplaying. Funny, that. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-