Until you come to your senses and are willing to engage these issues in an intellectually serious manner and with some degree of conceptual proportion and balance, I see no real further need to discuss these and other issues with either you or most others here.
Huh? I thought my post was well thought out and I shared with you some real life view of real life people on this. I even started off my complimenting you:
This was an interesting thread. I understand Droopy's points in the OP and yes he did make some arguments. Those arguments come from a very conservative and fundamental view of Mormonism. Based on Droopy's world view I understand why he makes the arguments he makes and why he view Brooks as a threat.
"Misogynistic?" This characterization of the Church's historic doctrinal understanding of woman, womanhood, and her unique contribution to the human condition has crossed well beyond the borders of pathetic and into the regions of the deranged.
Try reading this again Droopy. It it the view of these young women that I am sharing. Here it is. Read real slow this time:
Well fast forward to today. All three of them wonder if they have worth in God's eyes beyond wife and mother. All three want to pursue careers. My oldest has 30 year old friends who all cringe at the misogynistic patriarchy of the Church (past and still present). They tire of the oft repeated message of wife and mother being their main job and the culture that paints those who differ as apostate. They would love to have more opportunities to lead.
No further serious discourse with you is possible. I've taken a break for this board for a week or so and let my last posts simmer a bit, but in looking at the responses to this particular thread today, What do I see?
I am starting to agree with most here that you are incapable of serious discussion. Anytime someone disagrees with you you fly of into your paragraph length sentences that end up meaning nothing other than some far right unber conservative rant.
Buffalo, Nomomo, Paul, a snarky troll by the name of Boyd K. Packer and L. Tom Perry, DarkHelmet, and Little Lulu; a savory smattering of the core anonymous trolls, snarks, bigots, intellectual fraudsters, and permanent adolescents on this board who post with any frequency have offered there own little serving of intellectual vacuity and leftist anti-Mormon (and anti-conservative, antinomian, countercultureal) smarm to the proceedings. I see no philosophically serious responses to my OP.
Not one? None? Really?
None.
Maybe you like BC are simply a legend in your own mind.
Have a nice time in the Great and Spacious Echo Chamber.
Blah, blah, blah.
I'll be by now and then to tie some shoelaces together and, in general, toiletpapar the house, but otherwise, enjoy criticizing, bashing, and vomiting on the church amongst yourselves.
This is typical of your tantrums. Wish I had 20 bucks for every time you say this. You will be back. We are the only ones that will tolerate you.
Oh, and your denigration, trivializing, and devaluing of motherhood, childrearing, family, home, and parenting qua parenting in relation to the high holy calling of career, accumulation of material things, and the consuming of those things upon the the very core and center of all things - the radically free, autonomous, self absorbed "I" is well noted.
I am starting to perhaps agree with Kevin Graham about your intellect and you ability to comprehend. I never did anything of the sorts. I shared with you what real life young women are feeling about how the Church approaches such things.
This was an interesting thread. I understand Droopy's points in the OP and yes he did make some arguments. Those arguments come from a very conservative and fundamental view of Mormonism. Based on Droopy's world view I understand why he makes the arguments he makes and why he view Brooks as a threat. Try reading my post again Droopy. It it the female generation behind us that wonders about their worth. Try getting out a bit and talking to some real people. I was simply trying to show that this may be a problem for the Church.
And by the way I personally have no problem if a woman chooses a different path than what the Church teaches. Personally I still believe that marriage is very important and when children come one parent at least should be in the home and typically the mother is the best choice though not always. But I honor peoples choices to work through their own paths and desires with out heaping loads of guilt on them. Here is the rest of what I said. Try responding like and adult otherwise don't bother.
But Droopy, if you think her thoughts are an isolated or narrow view not shared by many Mormon woman you are mistaken.
So Droopy have you talked to any young women about this? Any at all?
Do you have daughters? I have three. All three grew up with me being very TBM and very much with the idea that their highest call is to be a good wife and mother. While I encouraged goals and education I always emphasized what the Church taught about working out of the home. etc.
Note that I emphasized my daughters were taught essentially what the Church teaches about family, home, roles of men and women.
Well fast forward to today. All three of them wonder if they have worth in God's eyes beyond wife and mother. All three want to pursue careers. My oldest has 30 year old friends who all cringe at the misogynistic patriarchy of the Church (past and still present). They tire of the oft repeated message of wife and mother being their main job and the culture that paints those who differ as apostate. They would love to have more opportunities to lead.
Note I am relating this from these young women's mouths. I have had discussions with them about this.
These are not aberrations Droopy. They are what women of our generation to some extent, really want. Certainly the generation behind us want such things even more so.
Do you dispute this Droopy?
That is why I asked before what does the Church do with a Brooks. You view her and those like her as the tares. Maybe so. But there are a lot more tares then coming up in this next generation that shouted hurrah when Julie Beck (who took a very hard line about a woman's role in the Church) was released at the last conference.
The Church will continue to bleed out and lose such women unless it accommodates. Your approach is sure to drive many out. Is that what you want? Is that what the leaders want?
Not rather than discussing this rationally, and it could be a nice discussion, you had your typical melt down.
Really I don't give a rats behind if you ever talk to me again. I also don't give a poo that you have "well noted" something I did not even say or do. Is that a threat? I am supposed to be scared? Really Droopy, take a chill pill before you post again.
