As to my writing style: that's how I write, and that's how its going to be, and if it gives you a headache, fine, the way I write, when I do so seriously, is inteded to make you think, not just to squirt out pat answers.
Your style is horrible. Go ahead and continue with it though. It is rather funny to read. Many of the words you use are wasted and add nothing to what you are trying to say. It does not give me a headache, and it does not make me think. I read much more difficult information every day in my work, and I write. When I write I need to communicate information to others that is tough for a person not in my business to understand. So I take complexity and simplify. There is a term applied to writing called a fog index. Simply put it is based on the number of words per sentence. Your fog index is about as high as it gets. So if you are trying to get people to think you are failing. Rather, it makes some of your posts, well, rather silly. Plod on!!!
Your dead wrong on the doctrinal justifications for woman not holding the Priesthood. The writings of the GA.s of the church over genrations are full of detailed explanations for this practice regarding church governance. Unlike the Priesthood ban, which despite being taught in an authoritative manner, was, like any other number of concepts taught in an authoritative manner, was never official church doctrine binding on the Saints (and I'm not claiming that their are not substantive aspects of the explanation of the ban that are not doctrinal. There are. I'm also not saying that the Lord might not ultimately have been the source of the ban. He may have been. I'm also not saying that all of the docrtinal details of the explanation were in fact, inspired. They may not have been).
\
I have never seem any reason that women do not have the priesthood other then that is the way God designed it and they have different roles, as well as comments about men not being able to bear children.
The lack of Priesthood among woman is established church doctrine, and has been for quite a long time. Its quite biblical, and one need not be a degreed biblical scholar to find warrant for it in the New Testament, as well as for the concept of the presiding leadership role of the man in the home. So, here we have a 2,000 year history of a patriarchal order being observed within the Lord's church, which means from biblical times to the present, this was something else simply restored by the Prophet, and has no relation to cultural norms (even though, similar cutural norms, although corrupted, had always existed side by side with the authentic gospel teachings).
Is it established Church doctrine like the ban for blacks was? Can it change? What would you think if it did?
This isn't to say patriarchy isn't a western cultural norm. Its to say that those particular norms have no direct relation to the patriarchal order as understood and observed within the church and kingdom.
Is patriarchy a result of what God really wants or a result of social developments over thousands of years that may now be in flux?
As to your idea that woman don't lead, this is utter nonesense. Woman lead all througout the church, and, truth be told, they lead the men who lead the church, from the home to the ward to the Presidency of the Chuch.
Women lead subject to approval from men. In the Church before correlation the leaders of the Relief Society and YW organizations actually had more autonomy then to lead. But after correlation everything comes under priesthood leadership. Can a Relief Society president call her own successor?
If you don't understand what I mean by this Jason, then there's probably little more I can say on this subject you will grasp at this time.
I understand that you have said little other then that is just the way it is.