Something Troubling in Sunday School

[_Buffalo]

Explain why it's a deflection? If Jim Crow is related to slavery (and I haven't seen you deny that), then how is sexism not related as well? Sexism and Jim Crow laws are fairly comparable.

Oh brother. What are we playing here the 5 or 6 degrees game again?

I can see you're upset, but perhaps you could address my comparisons when you get a chance?

Is Jim Crow related to slavery, in your view? Is Jim Crow similar to sexism?

[_consiglieri]

I'd like to point out that LDS men are in a similar position.

A good point, LDST.

The main difference being, of course, that a woman can never hope to be promoted to either bishop or stake president.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_stemelbow]

I think what he's saying is you seem to think that our objection to institutional sexism in the church trivializes slavery because we compare it to slavery. He's saying that slavery remains very wrong even when we compare it to sexism.

Both are evils of the same type, but different degree. Just like shoplifting and robbery are crimes of the same type, but different degree.

If that's what he's saying then he sure had a difficult time communicating that. He said I said somethign I did not say, not even close.

its far more than just comparing slavery to sexism that I object to. its the insinuation that the treatment is equal, between how LDS treat women and how slaves were treated by slave owners, and the expressed opinion of an LDS woman is equivalent to a bite the tongue rhetorical statement by a slave. Its clearly a pathetic comparison. Its just too sad that people here don't want to see it--would prefer to attack LDS so much that they would overlook the disprespect inherent in Consig's point.

[_stemelbow]

Perhaps a different question is in order, Brother Stem.

Setting aside the issue of whether you see any similarity between slavery and sexism, do you think it sexist for the LDS Church to refuse priesthood ordination to women based solely on their gender?

A yes or no will suffice.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ah I see, turn it around on me. Cool. I've said many times here I find it sexist.

[_just me]

And that is just talking about the "power" part of the priesthood. The "authority" part would allow women to preside in Church. After correlation, women can "preside" over Relief Society and Primary, but really they are just subordinates to the bishop who is the one doing the real presiding.

I'd like to point out that LDS men are in a similar position. In a stake, here are the people that have authority - Stake President, Bishop, Elders Quorum President, Teachers Quorum President, Deacons Quorum President. In practical terms, it's really just bishops and stake presidents who ever exert any real decision making authority.

YM presidents, Sunday School Presidents, high councilors, clerks, secretaries, all counselors in all presidencies, all of them are powerless to make any type of autonomous decision without the approval of the either a bishop or a stake president.

H.

Yes. But, again, they are still all men. A woman has no opportunity or chance of gaining real leadership power in the church heirarchy. She will always be below man as it currently stands.
None of her leaders will be from her peer group. If she is ever brought before a bishop's court she will be judged by a group of men.

The heirarchy of the church has issues apart from excluding women from leadership postitons. That's a whole 'nother topic. The church has created more "yes men" than leaders, though. I will say that.

[_consiglieri]

its the insinuation that the treatment is equal, between how LDS treat women and how slaves were treated by slave owners, and the expressed opinion of an LDS woman is equivalent to a bite the tongue rhetorical statement by a slave. Its clearly a pathetic comparison. Its just too sad that people here don't want to see it--would prefer to attack LDS so much that they would overlook the disprespect inherent in Consig's point.

If it will help move the discussion along, Stem, I hereby apologize for any offense I have given by making such a comparison. Even in the OP, I asked the question whether this comparison was out of place. You have answered that you feel it is.

Good enough.

Now, would you please answer the question I posed to you above--whether you think it sexist for the LDS Church to deny priesthood ordination to women based solely on their gender?

Thanks in advance.

--Consiglieri

P.S. I just saw your post in which you agree it is sexist. Time for a follow-up question. Do you think it should change? If so, in what way? And if so, when?

[_Buffalo]

If that's what he's saying then he sure had a difficult time communicating that. He said I said somethign I did not say, not even close.

its far more than just comparing slavery to sexism that I object to. its the insinuation that the treatment is equal, between how LDS treat women and how slaves were treated by slave owners, and the expressed opinion of an LDS woman is equivalent to a bite the tongue rhetorical statement by a slave. Its clearly a pathetic comparison. Its just too sad that people here don't want to see it--would prefer to attack LDS so much that they would overlook the disprespect inherent in Consig's point.

Again, I don't think anyone's saying they're the same. Slavery is obviously very worse. I think what's being said is that there are some similarities.

[_stemelbow]

Actually, you are the one who took it too far and we're trying to bring you back down. Why you have chosen to blow this out of the water and focus on it rather than the amazing discussion about the sexism that exists in the church is beyond me....but I think I can guess.

Anyone can guess. I just think you’d be way wrong in your judgment of me. Have at it though. What do you think, Just me?

What is blown out of proportion is the comparison that the treatment received by LDS women is akin to treatment received by slaves and the idea that a slave biting his tongue and kissing an owners butt is akin to a real live, modern, LDS woman giving her opinion on the matter of LDS priesthood. Yeah…I’m the one blowing it out of proportion. I merely objected to the ridiculous comparison.

A man absolutely does have control over receiving the priesthood in the church. Again, why you choose to misunderstand my words is beyond me. All a man has to do is....actually, you know what? All a boy has to do is turn 12. The bishop automatically pulls him in for an interview and assuming he answers all the questions properly he is ordained. A convert goes through the same process. He is very much able to bring about his ordination to the priesthood.

Alright. I get ya. I just think your point is a moot one.

A woman has no such thing available to her. If I go to my bishop and tell him I am ready for the priesthood what do you think would happen?

This is just further deflecting from the issue. But have at it.

That is why we get responses like the woman in the OP! "Oh, no, I wouldn't want the priesthood anyway. How aweful! What a terrible responsibility. I am just a woman, I have more responsibility than I want already."

You are not that woman. So while you choose to read the reported words she uttered as disingenuous I simply won’t disrespect her so much to do so. That does nto mean I accept totally the notion that women should not receive the priesthood of course, please don’t misunderstand me.

At this point I feel that you are willfully trying to misunderstand the members of this board. You willfully avoid meaningful conversation in favor of attacking peripheral and minor points of discussion. And you rarely make a stand on anything.

Hey, if ya don’t like me, then cool. I don’t mind at all. I’m merely taking a stand on something I find objectionable that Consig said. You can disagree with me to your heart’s content. You can even, if you want, view Consig’s point favorably. You can find a way to selectively interpret his words as harmless if ya like. I don’t mind. That doesn’t take away the absurdity of his comparison.

[_consiglieri]

None of her leaders will be from her peer group. If she is ever brought before a bishop's court she will be judged by a group of men.

And when she is confirmed a member, it is done while sitting and surrounded by a group of standing men.

I once had a female friend tell me she couldn't help but think that all those men's penises were pointed right at her head.

I had never thought of it that way before.

Although this friend had been sexually abused as a child, I sometimes wonder whether she is the only Mormon woman to have felt this way while being confirmed a member, set apart to a calling, or receiving a priesthood blessing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_stemelbow]

If it will help move the discussion along, Stem, I hereby apologize for any offense I have given by making such a comparison. Even in the OP, I asked the question whether this comparison was out of place. You have answered that you feel it is.

Good enough.

Now, would you please answer the question I posed to you above--whether you think it sexist for the LDS Church to deny priesthood ordination to women based solely on their gender?

Thanks in advance.

--Consiglieri

P.S. I just saw your post in which you agree it is sexist. Time for a follow-up question. Do you think it should change? If so, in what way? And if so, when?

I think you also owe me apology for when you said I said something reprehensible claiming I said it. That was ridiculous. I hope you understand that.

Sure it should change. How? I don't know. When? Right now is fine.