Sparing Women the Demands of the Priesthood

[_quaker]

Actually, I think that there are any number of women who would be happy to serve in the way Dan describes. There certain is no shortage of men who aspire to be Bishop, for a variety of reasons (e.g., power, status, opportunity to serve, personal growth, etc.). Are women that much different in this regard?

I don't know what your experience in the Church is, but mine is that the people who aspire to callings are normally the ones talented at making Church unbearable. People called as bishops are either:

1 - aspiring for authority, power or looking to satisfy their ego.
2 - men who accept any calling, pull up their socks and do it well (whether it be boy scout leader, primary teacher, stake president or bishop).
3 - scared to death and completely unsure of themselves, but who are willing to try.

If a woman accepted a calling with the attitude of 2 or 3 it would serve the membership well.

It makes sense that women who'd fall in the first category would be the ones who would aspire to the priesthood because the people (male and female) who fall under 2 and 3 are generally happy to use their talents doing whatever they are assigned. I say this with no basis besides my own logic, so it could be completely wrong :P

And for the sake of your perspective Harmony, I encourage you to ask some 12 year old boys and males of any age in the church about how they regard women. Either the majority of the males I know need their perspectives fixed to math yours (myself included) or you need to correct some of your ideas.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because sexual abuse has disappeared from our public school system what with all the women in positions of trust and confidence there, right?

Sir,

Would you care to support your insinuation that parity exists between male and female sex offenders? I admit to engaging in a little hyperbole with my statement, but surely you acknowledge sexual abuse within the Mormon church, in the course of executing one's office, would most likely plummet if women were in positions of authority and trust? Statistically speaking?

Also, you make a good point that the only ones who would change the 'authority dynamic' in the Mormon church are the Mormon prophet and apostles. Why, if it's so taxing as Dr. Peterson would have you believe, do you suppose those men refuse to cede some of their authority to women?

[_Morrissey]

Actually, I think that there are any number of women who would be happy to serve in the way Dan describes. There certain is no shortage of men who aspire to be Bishop, for a variety of reasons (e.g., power, status, opportunity to serve, personal growth, etc.). Are women that much different in this regard?

I don't know what your experience in the Church is, but mine is that the people who aspire to callings are normally the ones talented at making Church unbearable. People called as bishops are either:

1 - aspiring for authority, power or looking to satisfy their ego.
2 - men who accept any calling, pull up their socks and do it well (whether it be boy scout leader, primary teacher, stake president or bishop).
3 - scared to death and completely unsure of themselves, but who are willing to try.

If a woman accepted a calling with the attitude of 2 or 3 it would serve the membership well.

It makes sense that women who'd fall in the first category would be the ones who would aspire to the priesthood because the people (male and female) who fall under 2 and 3 are generally happy to use their talents doing whatever they are assigned. I say this with no basis besides my own logic, so it could be completely wrong :P

I totally, completely, 100% disagree with your conclusion. There are, I think, substantial number of women who also want to be challenged, grow, get a perspective from the other side (as it were), etc. who would would not only welcome but yearn for an opportunity to serve in authority/leadership/ministry positions. LDS Inc has created this artificial ethos in which 'aspiring' for leadership is seen as a character flaw. This is BS. There are lots of reasons to aspire for leadership, some noble, some not so noble (depending on your value judgments), but there is no reason to believe that having not so noble aspirations to serve necessarily means that the person cannot do a good-to-great job in the calling.

[_Morrissey]

Because sexual abuse has disappeared from our public school system what with all the women in positions of trust and confidence there, right?

Sir,

Would you care to support your insinuation that parity exists between male and female sex offenders? I admit to engaging in a little hyperbole with my statement, but surely you acknowledge sexual abuse within the Mormon church, in the course of executing one's office, would most likely plummet if women were in positions of authority and trust? Statistically speaking?

Also, you make a good point that the only ones who would change the 'authority dynamic' in the Mormon church are the Mormon prophet and apostles. Why, if it's so taxing as Dr. Peterson would have you believe, do you suppose those men refuse to cede some of their authority to women?

That's easy. Because then they'd be CEDING authority. In an institution in which obedience, to authority is among the highest moral virtues, and in which authority is the coin of the realm, those who have it are not simply going to cede it, let alone cede it to a group that they have managed (with little effort and with little opposition) to disenfranchise almost completely.

[_asbestosman]

I would have thought from the post it was easy to tell I was joking. Perhaps not.

I got that you were joking, but I may have misunderstood what the intent behind the joke was. I know that people often seem to misinterpret my jokes, but I actually think that's because I'm not a particularly good writter. I do not claim that is the reason I misinterpreted you.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Veil your face, Nehor. It is a manmade symbol of your unworthiness to stand on your own. Until you're required to do that, you have nothing to say, because nothing you say can justify that kind of blanket condemnation.

I've been engaged twice and both times I was EXPECTED to kneel before them showing my unworthiness in their presence. The humiliation....the condescension.....all of it.....almost more then I can bear. Until you're required to kneel to your spouse I think you have nothing to say.

You were engaged twice? And yet still no marriage? Wow. You're even more of a loser and a dweeb that I thought.

[_Some Schmo]

I would have thought from the post it was easy to tell I was joking. Perhaps not.

I got that you were joking, but I may have misunderstood what the intent behind the joke was. I know that people often seem to misinterpret my jokes, but I actually think that's because I'm not a particularly good writter. I do not claim that is the reason I misinterpreted you.

I write so many jokes, I imagine it can be difficult to tell when I'm serious or not, and I'm certain some are more successful than others. No biggie.

And quite honestly, when I started out, I was going down one path, and rereading it, I realize in retrospect I took an unplanned turn. Mea culpa.

[_asbestosman]

Would you care to support your insinuation that parity exists between male and female sex offenders?

No, because I intended no such insinuation. I was responding to your hyperbole with the sarcasm it warranted.

surely you acknowledge sexual abuse within the Mormon church, in the course of executing one's office, would most likely plummet if women were in positions of authority and trust? Statistically speaking?

No, I do not. Do you have any evidence of this happening in other insitutions after they started to employ a mix of men and women in positions of trust? That you assume it would indicates to me that you probably buy into this societal near-hysteria about how men can't be trusted while women can be--that men should all be viewed as potiental monsters while we can let women be alone with children without worrying our pretty little heads.

I acknowledge that statistically speaking men greatly outnumber women as child molesters. I deny that we should use this to put all men on probation or stop treating them with dignity or whatever. I acknowledge that we should be smart and not leave children alone with one adult unless that adult is a parent (this protects thw adult against false accusations too). I also acknowledge that statistically speaking, minorities are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, but SO FREAKING WHAT? Racial profiling is stupid and gender profiling is stupid for all ths same reasons. Maybe some day society will grow up. Hey, a person can dream, right?

Also, you make a good point that the only ones who would change the 'authority dynamic' in the Mormon church are the Mormon prophet and apostles. Why, if it's so taxing as Dr. Peterson would have you believe, do you suppose those men refuse to cede some of their authority to women?

Laying aside for the moment that I don't think it's all up to the prophet and apostles, I just want to let you know that my ability at mind-reading is probably no better than yours. I really don't know why. Even assuming that it's only up to those 15 men, I very much doubt that they're afraid of women getting power. As I recall, Utah was quite happy to let women vote.

I wonder though, why didn't Jesus call 6 women apostles? He must have been very sexist indeed.

[_asbestosman]

I write so many jokes, I imagine it can be difficult to tell when I'm serious or not, and I'm certain some are more successful than others. No biggie.

Yeah, no biggie. I think I come across as angrier than I am perhaps due to the sarcasm I seem use lately. I try to make calm posts to help demonstrate it, but I think it'd be a lot easier if people could actually hear my voice and see my face, or that they knew me.

But I prefer to revel in my anonymous cowardice.

[_The Nehor]

Nope, I have no idea which gender does more work then the other. I don't particularly care. To score a gender by how much they get done is to generalize and stereotype. To boast about a gender doing more is inane. I'm pointing out the inanity. I will say that I think Bishop is quite possibly the hardest calling in the Church with the possible exception of Apostle but I don't know any Apostles well enough to make the judgment.

I was simply following up on DCP's train of thought. He insinuated that part of the burden of the priesthood was all the church work associated with callings in the priesthood.

If, in reality, the amount of work males and females do in the church is roughly equivalent - which I think is likely - then focusing on the amount of work associated with the priesthood makes no sense as a response to a woman who would like to be able to do the "cool things" available to the priesthood.

And that is why, of course, I, in turn, focused on the performance of sacred ordinances as the real difference between males and females in the LDS church.

In a general sense they're equal. I would hypothesize that Priesthood leaders are way ahead of the curve. Hence why I never want to be Bishop.