Something Troubling in Sunday School

[_Darth J]

DarthJ was trying to be funny. He is equating Mormon women with livestock. Of which I see no comparison.

Actually DarthJ is showing how your view of Mormon women treats them as livestock.

Let's not try to be dense, shall we?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Now, Consiglieri......

You know as well as anyone that being deliberately obtuse and treating objective fact as "opinion" is a frequent tactic of Mormon defenders on the internet.

Women are a commodity in the LDS Church. Contra Why Me, I am not "saying" that. The LDS Church is demonstrating that.

When one random 12 year-old boy has more ecclesiastical authority than all the women in the Church combined, it is no longer up for debate as to whether the Church is "gender racist."

And despite Why Me's reminder as to who the LDS Church claims to be led by, the Church's arbitrary, inexplicable policies and behavior that have no indicia of being particularly enlightened, insightful, or ahead of the curve are much more telling that it is the salaried gerontocracy, not Jesus as Mormons imagine him to be, who leads the Church.

[_consiglieri]

The LDS attempt to make men and women equal strikes me as similar to burning fish sticks on the outside, leaving them frozen in the middle and saying, "There we go... that evens it out."

I won't even ask which are the burned and which the frigid . . .

[_consiglieri]

If you want to get technical, presiding in the home is not based on holding the priesthood. It's based on maleness.


If priesthood were a requirement, the church would have to say that non-LDS husbands (who don't hold the priesthood any more than women do) do not preside in their homes.

I think you are right about that, MJ. I almost went there in my post, but decided not to because I wasn't sure.

But when you put it that way, it is hard to deny.

Power to the penis!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_stemelbow]

Does the one word "discrimination" not describe both sexism and slavery?

no. Not necessarily.

If one word can describe them both, how can they not be of the same kind?

Disappointedly yours,

--Consiglieri

This is pretty simple, Consig. Can there be discrimination without slavery? If yes, then perhaps you can see that sexism is a different kind then slavery. Can there be slavery without racism? Sure. Is that at issue at all? I don't' think so. I'm merely saying to equate women not getting the priesthood to slavery is absurd--its a terrible comparison and the comparison itself is quite disrespectful. But, you disagree. What more can I say? People are absurd here all the time.

[_stemelbow]

Let's try to focus. We're talking about American slavery. You're saying it's unconnected to racism?

How is deflecting focusing? This is absurd. Consig tried to equate women not getting the priesthood, at worst sexism, to slavery. In so doing he was disrespectful, i would say and you and he would disagree. Now, you are he are trying to justify his words by saying slavery has connection to racism. So what? That's not my point at all. That's sheer deflection--which is the opposite of focusing.

[_consiglieri]

This is pretty simple, Consig. Can there be discrimination without slavery? If yes, then perhaps you can see that sexism is a different kind then slavery. Can there be slavery without racism? Sure. Is that at issue at all? I don't' think so. I'm merely saying to equate women not getting the priesthood to slavery is absurd--its a terrible comparison and the comparison itself is quite disrespectful. But, you disagree. What more can I say? People are absurd here all the time.

The class will now open their textbooks and review the lesson on sets, subsets and supersets.

[_Buffalo]

Does the one word "discrimination" not describe both sexism and slavery?

no. Not necessarily.

Stem, if you take a deep breath and think about it I think you'll find that discrimination is an essential component of both.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, if you take a deep breath and think about it I think you'll find that discrimination is an essential component of both.

Slavery extends beyond the discrimination of race. Its a whole other practice. Indeed, as I said, racism can be present without slavery. Slavery too can be present without racism. Why this is such a tough issue for you two to grasp is troubling. They are two different kinds. They are not equal. To equate women not getting the priesthood to slavery is absurd, and disrespectful.

Agree to disagree? or put more foot in your mouth? Your choice.

[_MsJack]

I don't think comparing sex discrimination to slavery is disrespectful or absurd at all. It's all about dehumanization, power, and control. One just happens to be much, much more extreme than the other.

It's more like comparing third degree assault to murder. They're very different in severity, but many people would put them on the same scale.

[_Darth J]

Stem, if you take a deep breath and think about it I think you'll find that discrimination is an essential component of both.

Slavery extends beyond the discrimination of race. Its a whole other practice. Indeed, as I said, racism can be present without slavery. Slavery too can be present without racism. Why this is such a tough issue for you two to grasp is troubling. They are two different kinds. They are not equal. To equate women not getting the priesthood to slavery is absurd, and disrespectful.

Agree to disagree? or put more foot in your mouth? Your choice.

Stemelbow---

Saying two things are comparable is not the same as saying that two things are equal.

Thanx.

P.S. When you are attempting to defend an institutional policy that prohibits women from having any leadership role or even performing rituals (a.k.a. "ordinances"), you have forfeited any right to pontificate about being "disrespectful."