The Ban has not been lifted....

[_Trevor]

Ya know, I don't know what the stink is about Fox News. I kinda like it. I mean, at least they have the courage to put up proponents from both sides of an issue to have a live debate. I don't recall seeing anything like that on CNN. Bill O'Reiley for example, always starts out talking about a controversial topic, he gives his take on it, and then he presents one or two, sometimes three, people who disagree with him, and he asks them to tell him why he is wrong. I love that. He strikes me as a fairly reasonable fellow. I don't know what views he holds that drives people nuts.

It [Fox News] is simply one of the egregious examples of what passes as news these days. News is hardly a fitting name for it. It is ideological brainwashing, misdirection, and infotainment all around. It contributes to the astounding degree of ignorance of the American electorate rather than improving the situation. In short, it is a travesty, if one chooses to judge it by standards of old fashioned journalism. As a dog and pony show it is first rate.

[_dartagnan]

Can you provide an example of something specific, just so I can verify whether or not I have been brainwashed?

Which news organization do you recommend? Please don't say the NYT or CNN.

The Factor, by the way, is a news analysis show, which is something quite different. I think it fosters open debate.

[_Trevor]

Can you provide an example of something specific, just so I can verify whether or not I have been brainwashed?

Which news organization do you recommend? Please don't say the NYT or CNN.

The Factor, by the way, is a news analysis show, which is something quite different. I think it fosters open debate.

Oh, come on, D!?!?! Just because cable news is trash does not mean you personally have been brainwashed. I recommend you read your news from a variety of sources (domestic and foreign). I think cable news is a waste of time. The rate at which important information is distributed is about the drip of a leaky tap. I have little or no respect for the fireworks of most of these so-called news analysis shows.

In short, I dropped my cable several years ago, and I don't miss it. I may know a lot less about Britney Spears, but I really don't miss that.

[_BishopRic]

Can you provide an example of something specific, just so I can verify whether or not I have been brainwashed?

Which news organization do you recommend? Please don't say the NYT or CNN.

The Factor, by the way, is a news analysis show, which is something quite different. I think it fosters open debate.

Oh, come on, D!?!?! Just because cable news is trash does not mean you personally have been brainwashed. I recommend you read your news from a variety of sources (domestic and foreign). I think cable news is a waste of time. The rate at which important information is distributed is about the drip of a leaky tap. I have little or no respect for the fireworks of most of these so-called news analysis shows.

In short, I dropped my cable several years ago, and I don't miss it. I may know a lot less about Britney Spears, but I really don't miss that.

In case you want to know, her 16 year old sister is pregnant.

Now, back to our regular scheduled programming....

[_charity]

What is the difference between banning someone because of skin color versus banning them because of body parts (or lack thereof... smile)?

I don't think it is viewed as a "ban," anymore than men are "banned" from becoming visiting teachers. Women have their place in the Church, and I don't think too many of them are resentful of it. I often heard Church talks that said men had to be given the priesthood just to be equal with the women. The idea here is that women are much more spiritual. My friend who baptized me told me this, and this type of thinking seemed to resonate with Mormons everywhere.

I have a difficult time with the idea that anyone can ban others using the excuse, "well they don't want to do such and such anyway."

It wasn't meant as an excuse. It is an axiom that needs to be observed before comparing it to the priesthood/negro situation.

I personally don't think the priesthood is anything other than a way for men to have power, nevertheless, I'm surprised the media hasn't even mentioned it... maybe they do not know how it all works in the LDS church?

I think more likely, they don't care. At least, not until you get Mormon women complaining about it. If they don't feel neglected, then who are we to feel neglect on their behalf?

Well, women's rights are sort of important in a modern world that advocates equality. At least to some folks! ;-) *

But this doesn't qualify as a right.

My own mother lives in one of those. It's called Fox News.

Ya know, I don't know what the stink is about Fox News. I kinda like it. I mean, at least they have the courage to put up proponents from both sides of an issue to have a live debate. I don't recall seeing anything like that on CNN. Bill O'Reiley for example, always starts out talking about a controversial topic, he gives his take on it, and then he presents one or two, sometimes three, people who disagree with him, and he asks them to tell him why he is wrong. I love that. He strikes me as a fairly reasonable fellow. I don't know what views he holds that drives people nuts.

Dang! I am going to have to leave the message board for a while. I think I am hallucinating. I agree with everything Dartagnan has said here.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dart.... :-)

I don't think it is viewed as a "ban," anymore than men are "banned" from becoming visiting teachers. Women have their place in the Church, and I don't think too many of them are resentful of it. I often heard Church talks that said men had to be given the priesthood just to be equal with the women. The idea here is that women are much more spiritual. My friend who baptized me told me this, and this type of thinking seemed to resonate with Mormons everywhere.

I agree that so long as members in a group are OK with their discrimination and freely join the group, there is not a problem. If women in the LDS church are fine with their system, great!

I'm more interested in the fact that no one, (as far as I know), has asked Mitt his views toward women given his religious beliefs.

For example:

If he believes women should be stay at home moms, how does he feel about appointing them into leadership positions?

Does Mitt believe women who are in government positions are living out of harmony with their divinely appointed role?

Does he believe men in the LDS church have a Godly power and authority not afforded to women?

Rightly or wrongly, I find it interesting that the media, or his critics have not even discussed this.

My observation is that many women I personally know find the LDS ideas of women very archaic. During my believing days, when I invited friends to church some of the first comments were something like: why do women have to wear dresses? What is up with all the men in dark suits running the whole service? How come there are no women leaders?

And, even if the reason for the omission is that other fundamentalist religions also believe women should stay at home, and not participate in religious leadership positions, seems our society should move beyond this.

Again, society finally moved to a place where they no longer found discrimination toward blacks acceptable, it still hasn't happened for women.

Maybe another fifty years or so?

;-)


~dancer~

[_malkie]

OK, it was lifted for a few folks but it is still in place for half the LDS population.

I find it interested how the media (thank you Mitt), has recently discussed the LDS Priesthood ban for black folks of African descent, but as far as I know, has not mentioned the fact that the ban is still alive and well for women.

In this country, moving toward equality and basic human rights, I find it strange that this wouldn't at least be minimally addressed by someone.

Why is it wrong for the LDS church to ban blacks from the Priesthood but discrimination toward women is not even a blip on the screen?


~dancer~

If you see this as a threadjack, please accept my apologies.

I think that your beef may be more with the organization than with "poor" Mitt. So let's take out the current political situation, and look just at the situations of blacks and women with regard to the priesthood.

Prior to 1978, members of neither group could hold the priesthood. After 1978, members of one of these groups was allowed to hold the priesthood.

The ostensible reason for the changes was that, although the Book of Abraham seemed to prohibit members of that group from holding the priesthood, and apostles taught that it would not happen before the millennium (more or less), the Brethren managed to persuade God to change his mind and overturn the ban. (I know, 'someone' will come after me for misrepresentation - I'm just trying to simplify the argument, so please be charitable and cut me some slack.)

So, TD, all you need to do to make members of the second group eligible for the priesthood is:

1. Find out where in the scriptures, and in the talks of GAs, it says that members of the second group cannot have the priesthood, or, at least, not until every man on earth has it (or something like that - work with me here)
2. Convince the Brethren that they really, really ought to take up the case for members of the second group with God

(I believe that it might help your case if the church were in danger of losing its tax-exempt status for discrimination in not allowing members of the second group to be PH holders, but that's just my opinion - i.e., I'm speaking strictly as a man here, and not as an apostle or prophet.)

by the way, good luck with that.

Malkie

[_truth dancer]

Hi Malkie... :-)

Thanks for your very helpful suggestions! No worries about a threadjack! (smile)

I think your final comment is the key here... as soon as society decides it doesn't like organizations (religions), that discrimiate toward women, there may be a chance God will also come to a place where "he" views women as equal human beings deserving of the same right/priviledges as boys and men. :-)

During the ban towards blacks, enough non-members put pressure on the church that God changed doctrine.

I suppose, since many members are fine with the current priesthood ban, it will take the outside world to help God realize one's body parts should not determine the exclusive role they are required to play or how they must contribute to the world.

(smile)

So, going back to the question, why the media hasn't asked Mitt about his beliefs towards women, I'm thinking enough non-members either do not know, or do not care that women are still discriminted against in the LDS church.

Just to clarify, again, this issue is not really important to me at all in terms of my personal life. I do not think the men of the LDS church have any special power or authority not afforded to women. I just find it a bit disconcerting that while society stepped up and put pressure on the church to move into the modern world of equality concerning race, it has not done so concerning women.

I'm thinking another fifty years or so? ;-)

~dancer~

by the way, welcome to the board Malkie!

[_guy sajer]

[Why the hell should Romney discuss this? What has it got to do with his political race? Should Rudy discuss the fact that Catholics don't let woman or even married men hold the priesthood? Should Huckabee discuss the fact the the SBC believes a women should not pastor a church?

For a similar reason why a candidate would be asked to discuss why he belongs to an organization that denies membership to minorities. While I don't think that, in general, religious beliefs should be a campaign issue (with exceptions), I think it is a legitimate question as to why an candidate would voluntarily associate with a group that denied membership, privileges, etc. to groups of people. The Mormon Church is a highly sexist organization, and I think that it is fair game to ask Romney why he associates with sexist organizations.

Damn straight it would be an issue if the priesthood ban on Blacks were still in effect What's the difference between denying the priesthood to blacks and to women? I don't see it.

[_guy sajer]

For me, this is like the Hooters situation when a few gay men sued the comapny because it only hired women as waitresses.

Becoming a priest isn't a right, so I don't think this is an equal rights isssue. And most women don't care to be priests anyway. So it isn't exactly the same thing as with the negro situation.

By way of analogy, membership in a civic organization isn't a right, so denying membership in a civic organizations to Blacks wouldn't be a civil rights issue?

With all due respect Kevin, how do you know women don't care to be priests? Are you surprised that in a culture that teaches women from birth that this is a role reserved for men that there is not a great hue and cry from women to be priests?

If the opportunity were made available to them, would they in mass say "no thank you?"

In sects in which women can be ordained, correct me if I'm wrong, but a non-trivial number of women have in fact been ordained.

Even with all this, does it really matter whether women in mass want to be priests?

If blacks by and large didn't want to be priests, would it still be ok to have a policy denying the opportunity to them?