DiscussMormonism.com

In my seriously considered opinion (IMSCO): Patriarchy/male supremacy. I won't enlarge on that thought at the moment... Other "wrongfuls" as you see them? Warm regards, Roger

The use of impossible expectations followed by guilt. This is at the heart of both western religion and intricate con games.

Well, its better than pot.

Not to mention the fact that Morrison's assertion, or implication here, is, strictly speaking, preposterous, from an LDS standpoint.

Coggins7 wrote:Not to mention the fact that Morrison's assertion, or implication here, is, strictly speaking, preposterous, from an LDS standpoint.

How in the hell is it preposterous??

In the temple, women covenant to "hearken unto their husbands, even as the husband hearkens unto the Lord".

That, my friend, is the epitome of male dominance. And that is just the beginning!

Scottie wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:Not to mention the fact that Morrison's assertion, or implication here, is, strictly speaking, preposterous, from an LDS standpoint.

How in the hell is it preposterous??

In the temple, women covenant to "hearken unto their husbands, even as the husband hearkens unto the Lord".

That, my friend, is the epitome of male dominance. And that is just the beginning!

I wonder how much longer that will last. The next generation of leaders will have been raised by women to whom feminism is ordinary.

As for the opening premise, that is definitely at the heart of almost all of my issues with the church. Virtually everything is based on women being second-class.

Well Scottie, it's certainly a step ahead of the pre-1990 version of the endowment, where a woman was placed under covenant to obey the law of her husband, with no further qualifier.

Scottie wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:Not to mention the fact that Morrison's assertion, or implication here, is, strictly speaking, preposterous, from an LDS standpoint.

How in the hell is it preposterous??
In the temple, women covenant to "hearken unto their husbands, even as the husband hearkens unto the Lord".
That, my friend, is the epitome of male dominance. And that is just the beginning!

For me, there are two interpretation:
1: women should hearken unto their husbands the same level as the husband should hearken unto the Lord
2. women should hearken unto their husbands as far as the husband really hearkens unto the Lord (read: if the husband doesn't the the wife shouldn't ?? )

Coggins7 wrote:Not to mention the fact that Morrison's assertion, or implication here, is, strictly speaking, preposterous, from an LDS standpoint.

Hi Loran, i think you are correct, from some TBM's standpoint. However, that LDSism flies Patriarchy as one of its banners does not illustrate, or demonstrate that male dominance has been particularly beneficial to the development of Mormonism. Or to our human society in general. Warriors that we males think ourselves to be. How utterly stupid--but that's another topic...

I think Harmony sees it well. Better educated, knowledgeable confident/assertive women will EVENTUALLY influence LDSism to set Patriarchy--as now interpreted--on the shelf with Plural Marriage & denial of Priesthood to Black men.

The "preposterous" thing, IMSCO, is the fact that not one representative of the female population is in a leader's decision making role, that is not dependent on male sanction in the Mormon church! No female GAs... None, no where contributing meaningfully to the institution that requires ten % of their income to prove themselves worthy of full sanctification, "from an LDS standpoint." Maybe they should only have to pay 5% ;-) eh? Warm regards, Roger

Cursed skins of blackness.