LDS Church: Sexist?

[_Coggins7]

Any sources to back up your remarks, Loran?

Loran:

Reams. How many weeks can I have to assemble them all? You want sources for what is primarily a philosohpcal disagreement? Nice debate ending tactic at the very outset. What kinds of sources would you accept? Are their empirical studies demonstrating whether or not what I said of Feminism and leftism generally are true or not.?

Come on.

My brief critique of radical feminism, and you conveinently left out that first term, comes while well aware of the so called waves (first, second, and third) as well as the sufferage movement, which had nothing whatever to do ideologically or culturally with what began in the late sixties. I stand philosophically by everthing I said about the general psycholgical and cultural attributes of many of the people who fomented and created the massively destructive cultural shifts that occured in the sixties and seventies, and if you want to discuss that, fine, but my source for my philosophical positions on issues such as these are me. If you want extensive quotations from the most important intellectual mentors of my life, rather than my own thoughts, then fine as well, but I'm only going to have so much paitence with this kind of source mongering where it isn't relevant.

The idea that the Church has embraced ideas from Andrea Dworkin is utterly hysterical. Dworkin's philosophy (and especially, her ideology) are, at very best, incompatible with Church teachings. Now, time to get serious agains Scratch.


I

think you are grossly oversimplifying the Feminist Movement, which most critics see as having three distinctive waves, within which are pretty disparate poles of "radicalness," including some that were heartifly embraced---ideologically speaking---by the LDS Church. (Think of Andrea Dworkin.) Also, I gather that you're completely unaware of the Women's Suffrage Movement, which took place a good deal prior to the era you seem to disapprove of so much?

Sure, I oversimplified, which is what you should expect in a short answer. In any case, nothing I said their about either radical leftist feminism or the left generally, is arguable (at least if you come from the Libertarian/Conservative background that I do). If you come from a leftist background, then you may think that this kind of cultural Marxism and its consequences are just wonderful. I disagree, for a number of reasons.

Quote:
Indeed, LDS doctrine places the feminine and its various aspects, including motherhood, in an exalted position, above, in many statements that could be brought to bear here, the official callings of males holding the Priesthood.



Nevertheless, LDS women cannot hold any ecclesiastic position, and they are dependent upon men for exaltation in a way that's not the same when the situation is reversed.

Loran:

The second statement is pure hokum. Once again, an anti-Mormon critic making dogmatic statements about doctrines he clearly has little understanding of. The relationship between males and females as to exaltation is completey equal as to requirements and the necessity of marraige and the keeping of covenants. Neither can achieve exaltation without the other. There is no full exaltation in a single condition. The proper answer to the first qauestion is a simple "so what"?

Why do woman need to hold ecclesiastic postitions? For what purpose? Based upon what criteria? And since you don't believe a word of what the Church teaches doctrinally, why do you care? Most woman I've ever known in this church could care less about governing the church in an official capacity with men. At least, these are the faithful, active woman who understand the doctrines and have the spirit of Christ with them so they can understand these things much better than you can. As GBH said, if and when the Lord reveals that woman should have the Priesthood, so be it, and fine and dandy. Until then, the entire issue is, as I said, a diverison from the serious work of the Lord into the shallow, dreary and divisive world of leftist political ideology and the pervasive politicization of personal and community life which is the life blood of that movemnet and that psychology.

Its not an issue with faithful members, only with those who don't yet have a clue.

The sheer preposterous nonesense bandied about on this thread is truly depressing. We have people holding to one religion (Leftist feminism) criticising others not a part of that religion for not accepting their own principles, forgetting apparantly that this sword has to edges. The rather large corpus of statements and teachings by church leaders regarding the overarching importance of woman and their unique roles in the Church are carefully stepped over lest we get our feet wet, and a completely artificial view of woman's position in the Church, and in the restored gospel is spun out of whole, if rough PC cloth.

The "unique role" of women in the Church is a subservient one. Good luck trying to prove otherwise. Even hardcore TBMs such as Calmoriah feel that they are living under the thumb of men within the Church.

Loran:

This is a purely subjective, ideologically based perception on you're part and bespeaks nothing but the existence of the ideological template through which all your perceptions of this issue are filtered. I don't have to prove anything because their's nothing to prove. You have zero understanding, like most active exmos, of gospel doctrine, and the fact that you think you do makes your claims on these issues all the more pathetic.

The role of woman in the Church is not subserviant. This is utter pap. The role of both men and woman in the chuch is subservient to Christ, and with respect to each other, there are natural, innate (both spiritual and biolgical) differences and unique features within each that are best manifested through a division of labor and differential emphasis of roles within the family and regarding their relationshp to each other.

The fact that modern feminism either does not recognize the differences (early radical feminism), or elevates the differences to a totemic degree (modern academic gender feminism) changes nothing of the realiy.

[_Jason Bourne]

Conversely, could it be that you are projecting your "non-issue" onto every one else in order to downplay whatever problems some people may have? If you're simply arguing along a "raw numbers" line.... Well, big deal, you know? There's no way to prove it one way or another. Pretty much all we have to go on are the revisions which have been made to the garments themselves---revisions which, if I'm not mistaken, came about in much the same way as the 1990 temple revisions. (I.e., by way of a survey.)

Yes I certainly could be projecting as well.

So perhaps here is the place where the argument ought to be taking place? Whether or not there is "interference," or indeed what, exactly, constitutes "interference"? You yourself said that the garments, essentially, "aren't hot." Thus, isn't it fair to say that they are a kind of "barrier," so to speak?

I am sorry, but no, personally I have not seen them as a barrier any more then other clothing.

Dear me, Jason, what on earth ever made you think I was "dissaffected"?

I did not say you were per say. Many here are though. I do not know what your status is.

And who's "extrapolating"? So far as I can tell, TD and myself are simply relying on the available evidence. You, on the other hand, are arguing exclusively from your own quite biased subjectivity, my friend.

I see you have no more available evidence then I do.

[_Mister Scratch]

Any sources to back up your remarks, Loran?

Loran:

Reams. How many weeks can I have to assemble them all? You want sources for what is primarily a philosohpcal disagreement? Nice debate ending tactic at the very outset. What kinds of sources would you accept? Are their empirical studies demonstrating whether or not what I said of Feminism and leftism generally are true or not.?

Come on.

My brief critique of radical feminism, and you conveinently[sic] left out that first term, comes while well aware of the so called waves (first, second, and third) as well as the sufferage[sic] movement, which had nothing whatever to do ideologically or culturally with what began in the late sixties. I stand philosophically by everthing[sic] I said about the general psycholgical[sic] and cultural attributes of many of the people who fomented and created the massively destructive cultural shifts that occured[sic] in the sixties and seventies, and if you want to discuss that, fine, but my source for my philosophical positions on issues such as these are me. If you want extensive quotations from the most important intellectual mentors of my life, rather than my own thoughts, then fine as well, but I'm only going to have so much paitence[sic] with this kind of source mongering where it isn't relevant.

Okay, go ahead and list what you think those "psycholgical cultural attributes" are.

The idea that the Church has embraced ideas from Andrea Dworkin is utterly hysterical. Dworkin's philosophy (and especially, her ideology) are, at very best, incompatible with Church teachings. Now, time to get serious agains[sic] Scratch.

Dworkin, as you will recall, testified before Congress against pornography. Has the Church rejected that "philosophy"?

Also, since you are doling out condescending advice, here's a little for you: learn how to spell.

I think you are grossly oversimplifying the Feminist Movement, which most critics see as having three distinctive waves, within which are pretty disparate poles of "radicalness," including some that were heartifly embraced---ideologically speaking---by the LDS Church. (Think of Andrea Dworkin.) Also, I gather that you're completely unaware of the Women's Suffrage Movement, which took place a good deal prior to the era you seem to disapprove of so much?

Sure, I oversimplified, which is what you should expect in a short answer. In any case, nothing I said their about either radical leftist feminism or the left generally, is arguable (at least if you come from the Libertarian/Conservative background that I do). If you come from a leftist background, then you may think that this kind of cultural Marxism and its consequences are just wonderful. I disagree, for a number of reasons.

Well, yes: your overgeneralizations are precisely the problem. Here's what you said:

The short answer to the above is that the above is a product of the standard, politically correct, post sixties, revisionist filtering system through which every question ultimately must pass before being regurgitated onto the idiologically correct silver platter of modern pop politics and served up with all the smarmy, self satisfied certitude the annointed Boomer and post Boomer generation of navel gazing pop philosophers can muster.

(emphasis added)

While I suppose there is some pretty fine use of alliteration in the above, it is still a blanket statement. Do you disagree?

:
Indeed, LDS doctrine places the feminine and its various aspects, including motherhood, in an exalted position, above, in many statements that could be brought to bear here, the official callings of males holding the Priesthood.

Nevertheless, LDS women cannot hold any ecclesiastic position, and they are dependent upon men for exaltation in a way that's not the same when the situation is reversed.

Loran:

The second statement is pure hokum. Once again, an anti-Mormon critic making dogmatic statements about doctrines he clearly has little understanding of. The relationship between males and females as to exaltation is completey equal as to requirements and the necessity of marraige and the keeping of covenants. Neither can achieve exaltation without the other. There is no full exaltation in a single condition.

Cf. Erastus Snow's infamous quote. Also consider the fact of who pulls whom through the veil. Do you have any counter examples, or passages of doctrine which effectively undo either of those two things? Good luck on that one.

The proper answer to the first qauestion[sic] is a simple "so what"?

So there is a gender-based division of equality in the Church. Are you okay with that?

Why do woman need to hold ecclesiastic postitions? For what purpose? Based upon what criteria?

Equality and fairness.

And since you don't believe a word of what the Church teaches doctrinally, why do you care?

The Church is just as much a part of my life as it is yours, Loran. A nice attempt at derailing into ad hominem attack, though.

Most woman I've ever known in this church could care less about governing the church in an official capacity with men. At least, these are the faithful, active woman who understand the doctrines and have the spirit of Christ with them so they can understand these things much better than you can.

I disagree, and will refer you once again to the talk delivered by Sis. Bushman, and also to the FAIR thread that discussed it. I think many women feel repressed/oppressed in the Church but are often reluctant to discuss, partly because of reactionary males such as yourself.

As GBH said, if and when the Lord reveals that woman should have the Priesthood, so be it, and fine and dandy. Until then, the entire issue is, as I said, a diverison from the serious work of the Lord into the shallow, dreary and divisive world of leftist political ideology and the pervasive politicization of personal and community life which is the life blood of that movemnet and that psychology.

It would be quite easy for GBH to pray to the Lord for an answer to this question like SWK did on the priesthood ban question.

Its not an issue with faithful members, only with those who don't yet have a clue.

Not true, my friend.

The sheer preposterous nonesense bandied about on this thread is truly depressing. We have people holding to one religion (Leftist feminism) criticising others not a part of that religion for not accepting their own principles, forgetting apparantly that this sword has to edges. The rather large corpus of statements and teachings by church leaders regarding the overarching importance of woman and their unique roles in the Church are carefully stepped over lest we get our feet wet, and a completely artificial view of woman's position in the Church, and in the restored gospel is spun out of whole, if rough PC cloth.

The "unique role" of women in the Church is a subservient one. Good luck trying to prove otherwise. Even hardcore TBMs such as Calmoriah feel that they are living under the thumb of men within the Church.

Loran:

This is a purely subjective, ideologically based perception on you're part and bespeaks nothing but the existence of the ideological template through which all your perceptions of this issue are filtered. I don't have to prove anything because their's nothing to prove. You have zero understanding, like most active exmos, of gospel doctrine, and the fact that you think you do makes your claims on these issues all the more pathetic.

So, basically you have no counterexamples. Only attacks and logical fallacies. How persuasive!

The role of woman in the Church is not subserviant. This is utter pap. The role of both men and woman in the chuch is subservient to Christ, and with respect to each other, there are natural, innate (both spiritual and biolgical) differences and unique features within each that are best manifested through a division of labor and differential emphasis of roles within the family and regarding their relationshp to each other.

This is better, and more to the point, in my opinion. You do so much better when you actually stick to the issue, Loran, rather than descending Pahoran-style into invective. Basically, as I understand it, you are saying that women are better off staying in the "weaker" slot, division-of-labor-wise, due to "innate biological and spiritual" differences? And here isn't "differences" in your view just a synonym for "deficiencies"?

The fact that modern feminism either does not recognize the differences (early radical feminism), or elevates the differences to a totemic degree (modern academic gender feminism) changes nothing of the realiy.

Which "modern academic feminism" are you talking about, Loran? Have you even bothered to read any of it? Even bell hooks, writing in the early 1980s, was putting out a call for cooperation with men. Also, many feminist aestheticians, whether they are examining makeup, or fashion, or what Susan Sontag called "camp," are very much about celebrating feminine distinctiveness. There is a further faction of feminism dedicated to defending the more traditional, stay-at-home mom role. Just out of curiosity, which feminism in particular are you talking about? Do you have an issue with "all of it," as you blanket statements would seem to imply? Or are you just angry about the more radical, Dworkin-esque versions of it?

[_Mister Scratch]

Conversely, could it be that you are projecting your "non-issue" onto every one else in order to downplay whatever problems some people may have? If you're simply arguing along a "raw numbers" line.... Well, big deal, you know? There's no way to prove it one way or another. Pretty much all we have to go on are the revisions which have been made to the garments themselves---revisions which, if I'm not mistaken, came about in much the same way as the 1990 temple revisions. (I.e., by way of a survey.)

Yes I certainly could be projecting as well.

So perhaps here is the place where the argument ought to be taking place? Whether or not there is "interference," or indeed what, exactly, constitutes "interference"? You yourself said that the garments, essentially, "aren't hot." Thus, isn't it fair to say that they are a kind of "barrier," so to speak?

I am sorry, but no, personally I have not seen them as a barrier any more then other clothing.

This in and of itself is problematic on account of the fact that garments are considered sacred. Or are you trying to claim that your run-of-the-mill t-shirt is on a par, spiritually speaking, with garments? Face it: the holy nature of garments is meant to discourage sexual thoughts (which are often synonymous with "unclean" thoughts in LDS culture and thinking).

[_Coggins7]

Quote:
The idea that the Church has embraced ideas from Andrea Dworkin is utterly hysterical. Dworkin's philosophy (and especially, her ideology) are, at very best, incompatible with Church teachings. Now, time to get serious agains[sic] Scratch.



Dworkin, as you will recall, testified before Congress against pornography. Has the Church rejected that "philosophy"?

Also, since you are doling out condescending advice, here's a little for you: learn how to spell.

Loran:

Yes, Dworkin has, and a number of other feminists, even the most extreme, like Catharine MacKinnon, have written and spokent out against it. However, their reasons for so doing are not in any sense similar to the Church's (or Christianity's in general).

The radical feminist critiqe of pornography is ideological and based in a cultural Marxist oppression/liberation paradigm between men and woman. The LDS view is theological and philosophical, and is based in the inherant sacredness of the male/female sexual relationship and its integrity. Radical feminism sees pornography as the exploitation of woman. The LDS view sees pornography as the exploitation of human sexuality qua human sexuality, and makes no distinction, for ideological or political reasons, as to who is being exploited. Pornography is immoral and destructive because of its desacralization and barbarization of human sexuality, not just because the primary objects of its concern are woman.



:

Indeed, LDS doctrine places the feminine and its various aspects, including motherhood, in an exalted position, above, in many statements that could be brought to bear here, the official callings of males holding the Priesthood.

Nevertheless, LDS women cannot hold any ecclesiastic position, and they are dependent upon men for exaltation in a way that's not the same when the situation is reversed.



Loran:

The second statement is pure hokum. Once again, an anti-Mormon critic making dogmatic statements about doctrines he clearly has little understanding of. The relationship between males and females as to exaltation is completey equal as to requirements and the necessity of marraige and the keeping of covenants. Neither can achieve exaltation without the other. There is no full exaltation in a single condition.

Cf. Erastus Snow's infamous quote. Also consider the fact of who pulls whom through the veil. Do you have any counter examples, or passages of doctrine which effectively undo either of those two things? Good luck on that one.

Loran:

1. I'm not aware of the quote of which you speak, but is Erastus Snow's 19th century comments settled, official church doctrine?

2. What does who pulls who through the veil have to do with anything? Its a patriarchal order. The man is in a sacred position of leadership in the home and in spiritual things. You know, if the church operated under a matriarchal order, sanctimonious preening leftists like you would be whining to high heaven about precisely the obverse of what you are whining and pontificating about now. This is one of the salient characteristics of the modern "liberal" you asked for: its not about principle so much as it is about its public appearance. Its the trendy cause and public statements and arguments in support of it that sets the leftist's heart all ablaze, not serious philosophical reflection or a private search for higher truths.

Its the self righteous public morality and principle of the left as over against the principled overarching moral and political philosophy of its alternatives.

Coggins7 wrote:
The proper answer to the first qauestion[sic] is a simple "so what"?

So there is a gender-based division of equality in the Church. Are you okay with that?

Loran:

What is a "division of equality"?

Coggins7 wrote:
Why do woman need to hold ecclesiastic postitions? For what purpose? Based upon what criteria?



Equality and fairness.

Loran:

Now we come to the Holy Grail of the left: equality. This is the fundamental and ultimate value to all leftiists and socialists of all schools of thought and faction, and they will sacrifice any other principle, including every iota of human freedom and dignity to this totem.

There is nothing "fair" about woman having the Priesthood in any substantive sense, as they have no need for it (woman can and have performed all of the miracles and have right to all the gifts of the spirit as do men). There is a division of labor and emphasis on somewhat different roles in the church, but I have no understanding of why you cannot understand those differences of emphasis of roles, except for the traditonal Boomer genration, secualr leftist animus against and devaluation of motherhood, traditonal nuclear family structure, and judeo/Christian moral concepts in general. What you percieve as subserviance and oppresion is nothing more nor less than a divsion of roles and labors, which the Chruch itself understands to be of equal value. But you see, within the leftist mental set, equality is of more importance than either rationality or freedom. Therefore, teachings such as the Church's on the differeing but overlapping roles of men and woman appear, to one who's ultimate value is egalitarinaism of condition, oppressive. While to those who believe more in quality than equality, it appears, at least when practiced in righteousness, the Lord's way, to be nothing more than...well, a division of labor.


Quote:
And since you don't believe a word of what the Church teaches doctrinally, why do you care?

The Church is just as much a part of my life as it is yours, Loran. A nice attempt at derailing into ad hominem attack, though.

Loran:

I should have snipped this bald lie, but why bother?

Quote:
Most woman I've ever known in this church could care less about governing the church in an official capacity with men. At least, these are the faithful, active woman who understand the doctrines and have the spirit of Christ with them so they can understand these things much better than you can.



I disagree, and will refer you once again to the talk delivered by Sis. Bushman, and also to the FAIR thread that discussed it. I think many women feel repressed/oppressed in the Church but are often reluctant to discuss, partly because of reactionary males such as yourself.

Loran:

I don't think you have a shred of empirical evidence, which is what you would need to make such a claim, about this point. And who on earth cares what Bushman said or what was on some FAIR thread? These are the ancedotes and personal perceptions of a few people with a very limited circle of friends, just as you and I have, and neither you or they have a particle of broad statistical evidence showing most Mormon woman to be given to your own personal leftwing idological preoccupations. I only state that I have met a vanishingly small cohort of woman, after a lifetime in the Church and after living in six states, who feel the way you and the glorious and important sister Bushman seem to feel.

Quote:
As GBH said, if and when the Lord reveals that woman should have the Priesthood, so be it, and fine and dandy. Until then, the entire issue is, as I said, a diverison from the serious work of the Lord into the shallow, dreary and divisive world of leftist political ideology and the pervasive politicization of personal and community life which is the life blood of that movemnet and that psychology.

It would be quite easy for GBH to pray to the Lord for an answer to this question like SWK did on the priesthood ban question.

Loran:

Yes, of course Scratch. It would also be easy for GBH to pray about whether homosexuality is just as moral and legitimate as heterosexuality, whether the Big Bang really happened, whether Michael Jackson is really as wierd as he appears to be, and when the exact date of the second coming will be. One suspects, however, that, all other things and problems in the world being equal, he has better things to ask the Lord about than these.

Quote:
The role of woman in the Church is not subserviant. This is utter pap. The role of both men and woman in the chuch is subservient to Christ, and with respect to each other, there are natural, innate (both spiritual and biolgical) differences and unique features within each that are best manifested through a division of labor and differential emphasis of roles within the family and regarding their relationshp to each other.



This is better, and more to the point, in my opinion. You do so much better when you actually stick to the issue, Loran, rather than descending Pahoran-style into invective. Basically, as I understand it, you are saying that women are better off staying in the "weaker" slot, division-of-labor-wise, due to "innate biological and spiritual" differences? And here isn't "differences" in your view just a synonym for "deficiencies"?

Loran:

What do you mean by "weaker"?

Quote:
The fact that modern feminism either does not recognize the differences (early radical feminism), or elevates the differences to a totemic degree (modern academic gender feminism) changes nothing of the realiy.



Which "modern academic feminism" are you talking about, Loran? Have you even bothered to read any of it? Even bell hooks, writing in the early 1980s, was putting out a call for cooperation with men.

Loran:

Yes, I've bothered to read more than enough of it. Bell Hooks is a revolutionary Marxist academic and virulent racist who, at least in recent years, is actually much better known for her black power ideological predilections than her radical feminism, although she has done enough writing on that subject as well. She's no one to quote seriously Scratch, except in an essay dealing with the most fevered fringes of American intellectual life.

Also, many feminist aestheticians, whether they are examining makeup, or fashion, or what Susan Sontag called "camp," are very much about celebrating feminine distinctiveness. There is a further faction of feminism dedicated to defending the more traditional, stay-at-home mom role. Just out of curiosity, which feminism in particular are you talking about? Do you have an issue with "all of it," as you blanket statements would seem to imply? Or are you just angry about the more radical, Dworkin-esque versions of it?

Loran:

Radical feminist Scratch. The leftist, cultural Marxist variety. You know very well which group of feminisms I'm talking about. The ones that dominate the academy, the media, and Hollywood.

You even mentioned Susan Sontag almost in the same breath as Bell Hooks. Hint: You're known by the company you keep Scratch.

Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

Quote:
The idea that the Church has embraced ideas from Andrea Dworkin is utterly hysterical. Dworkin's philosophy (and especially, her ideology) are, at very best, incompatible with Church teachings. Now, time to get serious agains[sic] Scratch.



Dworkin, as you will recall, testified before Congress against pornography. Has the Church rejected that "philosophy"?

Also, since you are doling out condescending advice, here's a little for you: learn how to spell.

Loran:

Yes, Dworkin has, and a number of other feminists, even the most extreme, like Catharine MacKinnon, have written and spokent out against it. However, their reasons for so doing are not in any sense similar to the Church's (or Christianity's in general).

The radical feminist critiqe of pornography is ideological and based in a cultural Marxist oppression/liberation paradigm between men and woman. The LDS view is theological and philosophical, and is based in the inherant sacredness of the male/female sexual relationship and its integrity. Radical feminism sees pornography as the exploitation of woman. The LDS view sees pornography as the exploitation of human sexuality qua human sexuality, and makes no distinction, for ideological or political reasons, as to who is being exploited. Pornography is immoral and destructive because of its desacralization and barbarization of human sexuality, not just because the primary objects of its concern are woman.

Well put. However, I think it's telling that you downplay women here in your argument: i.e., that you want to emphasize sameness and equality when it comes to sex/porn, but you chastise feminists and others who are in favor of ecclesiastical equality within the Church.

Indeed, LDS doctrine places the feminine and its various aspects, including motherhood, in an exalted position, above, in many statements that could be brought to bear here, the official callings of males holding the Priesthood.

Nevertheless, LDS women cannot hold any ecclesiastic position, and they are dependent upon men for exaltation in a way that's not the same when the situation is reversed.



Loran:

The second statement is pure hokum. Once again, an anti-Mormon critic making dogmatic statements about doctrines he clearly has little understanding of. The relationship between males and females as to exaltation is completey equal as to requirements and the necessity of marraige and the keeping of covenants. Neither can achieve exaltation without the other. There is no full exaltation in a single condition.

Cf. Erastus Snow's infamous quote. Also consider the fact of who pulls whom through the veil. Do you have any counter examples, or passages of doctrine which effectively undo either of those two things? Good luck on that one.

Loran:

1. I'm not aware of the quote of which you speak, but is Erastus Snow's 19th century comments settled, official church doctrine?

Is there "settled, official" Church doctrine---or even semi-settled doctrine---which says otherwise?

2. What does who pulls who through the veil have to do with anything? Its a patriarchal order.

(emphasis added)

Yep. No kidding.

The man is in a sacred position of leadership in the home and in spiritual things. You know, if the church operated under a matriarchal order, sanctimonious preening leftists like you would be whining to high heaven about precisely the obverse of what you are whining and pontificating about now.

Yes, you're right, since I am asking for equality, not one side having more power than the other, as your quote suggests.

This is one of the salient characteristics of the modern "liberal" you asked for: its not about principle so much as it is about its public appearance. Its the trendy cause and public statements and arguments in support of it that sets the leftist's heart all ablaze, not serious philosophical reflection or a private search for higher truths.

Its the self righteous public morality and principle of the left as over against the principled overarching moral and political philosophy of its alternatives.

You see denying women the priesthood as a "higher truth"? Okay.

Coggins7 wrote:
The proper answer to the first qauestion[sic] is a simple "so what"?

So there is a gender-based division of equality in the Church. Are you okay with that?

Loran:

What is a "division of equality"?

It's sort of like that line from Orwell: "All Church members are equal, but some Church members are more equal than others."

Coggins7 wrote:
Why do woman need to hold ecclesiastic postitions? For what purpose? Based upon what criteria?



Equality and fairness.

Loran:

Now we come to the Holy Grail of the left: equality. This is the fundamental and ultimate value to all leftiists and socialists of all schools of thought and faction, and they will sacrifice any other principle, including every iota of human freedom and dignity to this totem.

There is nothing "fair" about woman having the Priesthood in any substantive sense, as they have no need for it (woman can and have performed all of the miracles and have right to all the gifts of the spirit as do men). There is a division of labor and emphasis on somewhat different roles in the church, but I have no understanding of why you cannot understand those differences of emphasis of roles, except for the traditonal Boomer genration, secualr leftist animus against and devaluation of motherhood, traditonal nuclear family structure, and judeo/Christian moral concepts in general. What you percieve as subserviance and oppresion is nothing more nor less than a divsion of roles and labors, which the Chruch itself understands to be of equal value. But you see, within the leftist mental set, equality is of more importance than either rationality or freedom. Therefore, teachings such as the Church's on the differeing but overlapping roles of men and woman appear, to one who's ultimate value is egalitarinaism of condition, oppressive. While to those who believe more in quality than equality, it appears, at least when practiced in righteousness, the Lord's way, to be nothing more than...well, a division of labor.

Rather than explaining how and why women are truly "equal" within the Church, all you can do is attack this mysterious "leftist ideology"? Is that all you've got? You sound like the Unabomber, my friend. You saying that women "have no need for [the priesthood]" is sort of mind-boggling. Also, which "judeo/Christian moral concept in general" is it that justifies this denial of the priesthood?

Finally, your silly claim that the leftists favor equality over freedom doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially since many of these same leftists have favored abortion rights, and other pro-independence, "freedom for women"-type rights. I wonder how productive your black-and-white view of these issues can carry you, Loran.

Most woman I've ever known in this church could care less about governing the church in an official capacity with men. At least, these are the faithful, active woman who understand the doctrines and have the spirit of Christ with them so they can understand these things much better than you can.

I disagree, and will refer you once again to the talk delivered by Sis. Bushman, and also to the FAIR thread that discussed it. I think many women feel repressed/oppressed in the Church but are often reluctant to discuss, partly because of reactionary males such as yourself.

Loran:

I don't think you have a shred of empirical evidence, which is what you would need to make such a claim, about this point. And who on earth cares what Bushman said or what was on some FAIR thread?

Since my point is that women feel oppressed, I think that personal testimonies speaking to that fact are quite good evidence.

These are the ancedotes and personal perceptions of a few people with a very limited circle of friends, just as you and I have, and neither you or they have a particle of broad statistical evidence showing most Mormon woman to be given to your own personal leftwing idological preoccupations. I only state that I have met a vanishingly small cohort of woman, after a lifetime in the Church and after living in six states, who feel the way you and the glorious and important sister Bushman seem to feel.

Sheesh---crapping on Sis. Bushman, too? That's pretty low, Loran, even for you. And again, the fact that you "have met a vanishingly small cohort of woman[sic]" does little but re-emphasize my earlier assertion that women are not apt to voice their feelings, on account of their fear of being shouted down by the likes of you.

Quote:
As GBH said, if and when the Lord reveals that woman should have the Priesthood, so be it, and fine and dandy. Until then, the entire issue is, as I said, a diverison from the serious work of the Lord into the shallow, dreary and divisive world of leftist political ideology and the pervasive politicization of personal and community life which is the life blood of that movemnet and that psychology.

It would be quite easy for GBH to pray to the Lord for an answer to this question like SWK did on the priesthood ban question.

Loran:

Yes, of course Scratch. It would also be easy for GBH to pray about whether homosexuality is just as moral and legitimate as heterosexuality, whether the Big Bang really happened, whether Michael Jackson is really as wierd as he appears to be, and when the exact date of the second coming will be. One suspects, however, that, all other things and problems in the world being equal, he has better things to ask the Lord about than these.

Once again you reveal your bias. Do you really think the issue of women and the priesthood is something unworthy of GBH's attention? I somewhat think not, especially given his penchant for trying to downplay and allay whatever fears women and mothers in the Church may have, and also by way of his foot-in-mouth "Do you wish to marry a woman with greater education than your own"? remark. The bottomline is that the fact that you see this as a "stupid and silly" waste of GBH's time only shows how much of a sexist you are.

The role of woman in the Church is not subserviant. This is utter pap. The role of both men and woman in the chuch is subservient to Christ, and with respect to each other, there are natural, innate (both spiritual and biolgical) differences and unique features within each that are best manifested through a division of labor and differential emphasis of roles within the family and regarding their relationshp to each other.

This is better, and more to the point, in my opinion. You do so much better when you actually stick to the issue, Loran, rather than descending Pahoran-style into invective. Basically, as I understand it, you are saying that women are better off staying in the "weaker" slot, division-of-labor-wise, due to "innate biological and spiritual" differences? And here isn't "differences" in your view just a synonym for "deficiencies"?

Loran:

What do you mean by "weaker"?[/quote]

What do you mean? Who has more authority (i.e., "strength") within the Church?

:
The fact that modern feminism either does not recognize the differences (early radical feminism), or elevates the differences to a totemic degree (modern academic gender feminism) changes nothing of the realiy.

Which "modern academic feminism" are you talking about, Loran? Have you even bothered to read any of it? Even bell hooks, writing in the early 1980s, was putting out a call for cooperation with men.

Loran:

Yes, I've bothered to read more than enough of it. Bell Hooks is a revolutionary Marxist academic and virulent racist who, at least in recent years, is actually much better known for her black power ideological predilections than her radical feminism, although she has done enough writing on that subject as well. She's no one to quote seriously Scratch, except in an essay dealing with the most fevered fringes of American intellectual life.

Ah, so you're a racist too. Well done, Loran. You've almost ticked off the wacko, right-wing fascist Superfecta. Go on ahead and kick out your anger regarding immigration and we'll anoint you with your pointy white hat.

Also, many feminist aestheticians, whether they are examining makeup, or fashion, or what Susan Sontag called "camp," are very much about celebrating feminine distinctiveness. There is a further faction of feminism dedicated to defending the more traditional, stay-at-home mom role. Just out of curiosity, which feminism in particular are you talking about? Do you have an issue with "all of it," as you blanket statements would seem to imply? Or are you just angry about the more radical, Dworkin-esque versions of it?

Loran:

Radical feminist Scratch. The leftist, cultural Marxist variety. You know very well which group of feminisms I'm talking about. The ones that dominate the academy, the media, and Hollywood.

Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. You say "radical feminisms" dominate the media, and yet I see a media which includes Martha Stewart, Katie Couric, Rachael Ray, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Barbara Walters, etc.... Are you really trying to say that all of this fits neatly into your "leftist, Marxist" pigeonhole? Or are you engaged in a garden variety smear campaign?

You even mentioned Susan Sontag almost in the same breath as Bell Hooks. Hint: You're known by the company you keep Scratch.

Loran

I believe I once read an interview in which Sontag expressed admiration for some of hooks's writing. I guess it's a good thing she's less prejudiced than you are.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I love Andrea Dworkin and katherine McKinnon...they are my heroes against porn..

Katherine wrote some of the very first sexual harassment laws that are in our workplace today.

Andrea Dworkin was an outspoken lesbian advocate against porn...many people thought of har as a radical feminist..which
I guess she was...but I guess I am a radical feminist myself most of the time...

I did a porn presentation for one of my honors classes--anti porn actually....and I had all of my classmates thinkg differently about porn after that day...even the men

The girls in the class thought that porn did not effect them...but after the presentation they realized just how porn hurts all of us and I mean the sadist bondage--horrible porn that is out there....and how easy it is for our children to have access to it for free

[_harmony]

Loran, I will not engage you (mainly because Scratch is doing such a bang up job of tying you in knots already, and he needs no help from me in making you look like a fool). However, I will give a heartfelt comment: I thank God every day that you are not the norm for LDS men, at least not the ones I know. They would be appalled at your words, appalled at your lack of understanding for the burden which women carry in this church, appalled at your lack of anything remotely showing that you understand the role of feminism in the church. Your lack of historical context shows a lack of respect for those women, LDS women who moved mountains in order to radically change the society in which they lived. That you have forgotten their efforts is not only sad but shameful. Radical feminism had no more ardent supporters than LDS women.

We will once again regain what we lost with Joseph F Smith at the helm, as soon as this ultraconservative generation dies. When that happens, Joseph will be proud of his church once again. Until then, we make small gains, but we can take comfort in the 1978 revelation. God will not allow his sons to exercise unrighteous dominion in his church forever. All that we need is a prophet who was raised by a mother with a professional career. He is coming. When he arrives, women will once again be out from under man's thumb.

Auxilliary indeed. Pffft.

[_Jason Bourne]

This in and of itself is problematic on account of the fact that garments are considered sacred. Or are you trying to claim that your run-of-the-mill t-shirt is on a par, spiritually speaking, with garments? Face it: the holy nature of garments is meant to discourage sexual thoughts (which are often synonymous with "unclean" thoughts in LDS culture and thinking

I am sorry my friend, I just disagree, at least as far as righteous and good sexual activity with one's spouse. For a temple believing Mormon though, they may help to give one pause before one has an adulterous affiar. One last chance to reconsider before one removes their garment.

Anyway, this is beating a dead horse. We will just have to disagree on this one.

[_harmony]

For a temple believing Mormon though, they may help to give one pause before one has an adulterous affiar. One last chance to reconsider before one removes their garment.

Temple believing Mormons do not have affairs. The g's have no bearing on that; other factors (love of spouse, covenants, oaths, maybe...) but if a Mormon gets to the point where he/she's having an affair, he/she's not a temple believing Mormon.

As for garment-wearing Mormons who do have affairs, the g's are no deterrant, and instead often serve as a turn-on (naughty, naughty!). Anyone who thinks the g's are a deterrant has never really asked someone who's walked on the wild side. That's another of those convenient "lies" our dear leaders tell us, because they so desperately want to believe it themselves.