Something Troubling in Sunday School

[_consiglieri]

This is just further deflecting from the issue.

I think JM is suggesting you are the one deflecting from the issue by obsessing over a peripheral point while ignoring the substance of the discussion.

I have apologized and invite you to engage the main point of sexism in the LDS Church with the rest of us.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

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

Give him an inch . . .


I have not intentionally falsely attributed to you a statement you consider reprehensible, Stem.

If you can show me where I did, I will apologize.

Heck, I will apologize even without your showing me as an indication of my good faith.

Now can we get back to the actual subject?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_just me]

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.

Here is the comparison. A slave thanking the person who is in control for what little he does get. A woman thanking the person who is in control for what little she does get. It is a fine comparison. Nobody said her current situation was as bad as being in slavery.

But, if you will drop it, consig has apologized and we can all move on to what could be a fruitful conversation. K?

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.

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

Why do you think it is a "moot point?" It is the point of what we are discussing!

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.

THIS IS THE ISSUE!!! This is what the thread is about stem!

That is why we get responses like the woman in the OP! "Oh, no, I wouldn't want the priesthood anyway. How awful! 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.

I may not be her but I have sat in Relief Society for, um 17 years and heard it repeated over and over again. I have even said variations of the same thing. So, yes, I have a very good idea what this woman and my other sisters in the church say and even how they might think or feel.
And I didn't say she was disingenuous. Not at all. She has convinced herself that her words are true. But, they have to be repeated every once in a while to make it stick.

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.

Never said I didn't like you stem. Not even close. You make a stand on peripheral things and I would enjoy seeing you make a stand on the actual topics we are discussing.

You seem to not realize the position women have held throughout most of written history. They have been treated much as slaves. Even after slavery was abolished black people were denied rights and treated like crap. Well, even after women started to gain more rights they have still been denied equal rights and are still being treated like crap.

Again, I think it would be delightful if we could focus on the actual topic of sexism in the church and how women and men in the church respond to it rather than the tangent of consig's comparison which he has apologized for using. Hopefully taht would be fun for you, too.

[_LDSToronto]

Mormon men often marvel at how it is Relief Society seems to manage to do more than the priesthood quorums, at least on the local level.

But the Mormon system sets this up by giving men the sole obligation to do the presiding while simultaneously saying men are the ones who should be out earning a living to support their family so the woman can stay at home and raise the family.

Being a white, heterosexual, nominally christian, middle class male (let's throw sexy in there for good measure), I've only ever experienced inequality vicariously, never directly. Let that be your caveat to take nothing I say as factual or informed, only opinion-laden.

Just Me and MsJack have both pointed out that the priesthood is a vehicle for forming more intimate relationships with human beings and with God. The ordinances of the priesthood along with the various rites are designed to create familial and supernatural bonds. It's egregious that women are prohibited from administering those rites and receiving spiritual gifts that can only be gained by acting with God's power and authority. As it stands right now, a woman can never know how it feels to forge a link directly between her loved ones and her God; never command the elements by His supernatural power; never protect her home with His aid; never heal her ailing child by His anointing.

I've hopped into this conversation here because Consig's comment above touches on something that I don't completely agree with (though his points have been spot on throughout the thread). While my experience agrees with the observation that Consig makes - women tend to get things done, with greater effectiveness than men - I don't believe the reason is a function of available time. Rather, my experience says that, on the whole, women are more serious about church responsibilities than men. Perhaps it has something to do with gender differences, I really can't say. But for some reason, I've seen women, whether fully employed as professionals or as mothers (or as both) make monumental things happen in the church with more frequency as their priesthood-enabled counterparts.

Whatever the reason is, women seem to be able to make things happen without priesthood authority, while men seem to be stunted in this respect, even with priesthood authority. I'm making broad generalisations, yes, but this has been my experience and it seems to line up with Consigs experience, and the experience of others.

However great a work women perform in the church, it irks me to no end, as it irks JustMe and other women who have chimed in, that the reward is pedestal praise, and not additional authority. Even after much success, women are denied authority and must still subjugate themselves to the priesthood direction of men. And I've never been able to figure out why this is, why the withholding is necessary until now. Here's the thought that entered my mind:

LDS women work too hard in the absence of reward.

You can disagree with me, I accept I may be wrong. But it seems to me to be some simple economics - Why give the priesthood to women if they don't demand it in exchange for their efforts? There is a silence amongst women, almost a foregone conclusion that either God doesn't want them to hold the priesthood, ever, or that the priesthood will be bestowed in due time. Yet, imagine the revolution that could happen if women began a 'work to rule' campaign? Refused to serve on committees, refused to cook another church meal, only served the most destitute, boycotted ward and stake events en masse? What if the church really had to feel the absence of feminine contribution? Perhaps that would send a message, a message that women demand equal congress with men, equal authority, equal position before God, and equal entry to the priesthood.

H.

[_Yoda]

In Joseph Smith's time, women gave blessings to the sick. Also, the Relief Society was on a much more equal footing with the priesthood than it is today. Emma was ordained to the office of Relief Society President...not merely set apart. There is a difference. Joseph's vision of women and the priesthood role differed from Brigham Young's.

Many New Testament scholars see a similar thing happening in the primitive Christian Church; that Paul (of all people) seems to have held a high regard for women (in whose homes he frequently established his churches).

Paul says many things in support of giving women equal authority and function.

And yet "Paul" says many things that sound the opposite, such as women keeping silent in church.

Scholars I have read typically understand these latter expressions to have been written by someone after Paul and inserted into his writings, or coming up with entirely new epistles in Paul's name (such as Titus and the Timothies) which reflect a post-Pauline crackdown on the role of women in the Church.

Especially interesting to me is First Corinthians which says both positive things about women, allowing them to prophesy in church, only to be followed by the comment that women are to remain silent.

One wonders how they would manage to do both.

It is interesting that in this regard, as in so many others, Mormonism seems to track early Christianity . . . for good and ill.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This may require its own thread! Very interesting stuff! Do you remember which scholars stated that the writings regarding women were not actually from Paul, but inserted as Paul by someone else? Do we have any idea who would have done this?

[_LDSToronto]

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.

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

Absolutely. The point I wanted to make was that the priesthood and the way it's authority is distributed weakens the entire structure of the church by subjugating everyone, in some way. Women and men have issues - with women, inequality and gender-based power dynamics come into play, and I can only imagine how hard that can be.

I mean no disrespect - hopefully my other post shows that I am, at the very least, sympathetic.

H.

[_stemelbow]

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.

There are some similiarities between pretty much any two things, if ya try hard enough. That's not really addressing the point of my objection.

[_consiglieri]

[
This may require its own thread! Very interesting stuff! Do you remember which scholars stated that the writings regarding women were not actually from Paul, but inserted as Paul by someone else? Do we have any idea who would have done this?

Given the limitations of my reading, it must be Bart Ehrman! Probably in his textbook, "An Introduction to the New Testament."

But I am pretty sure he was giving a representative view in this regard.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Guest]

LDS women work too hard in the absence of reward.

I find this a fascinating thought, LDST!

Perhaps a "slow down" is in order.

And I agree with you there may certainly be other factors at play in the great amount of Church work accomplished by women. (And I also did not think you were being disrespectful in pointing out that the hierarchical nature of priesthood authority weakens pretty much everybody, including men, though especially women. I thought that another good insight.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_stemelbow]

Give him an inch . . .


I have not intentionally falsely attributed to you a statement you consider reprehensible, Stem.

Whatever. I called you on it from the get go and you have ignored it. Its really easy to just apologize for trying to attribute something to me falsely.

If you can show me where I did, I will apologize.

That means a lot...

Heck, I will apologize even without your showing me as an indication of my good faith.

That just makes it sound disengenuous, but whatever. I'm cool.

Now can we get back to the actual subject?

Hey, you're the one who made the objectional comparison. I know you say you apologize for doing so but I don't know what that means. You mean, you agree it was a stupid unfair comparison? Or you mean you just don't want me to talk about it? I don't know.

Here's what you had said to me:

Saying the priesthood ban against women is wrong doesn't make slavery not more wrong.

Nobody is saying this except you, Stem.

Certainly even Buffalo agrees I didn't say what you are saying I said. You can surely agree I didn't say anything like that, right? it ain't tough to apologize--you kind of apologized for something already, I just don't know what you mean to apologize.