Mktavish wrote: I didn't actually mean this thread ... and I guess a confession ... im sort of clueless on this thread.
Yada yada something about women being stuffed under a mans boot? I've heard it all before , maybe its just like the hum of a machine anymore.
Don't get me wrong though , I be for stuffing those boot stomping got to have it all their way mostly men types in a sack like a bunch of kittens and toss them in the canal for all I care.
What on earth does any of this mean? You don't know what the thread is about, yet you felt you needed to come in and comment on women being dramatic or overreacting? That is truly bizarre.
But anyways back to the subject ... and that was that I was telling you , you were over dramatic. First let me say ... there is nothing wrong with that , infact it is required for the spark of life that keeps it interesting. But maybe .... just maybe ... you might need to watch your tendency in the direction that involves a lot of people. But otherwise just do what you do ... you are a wonderful person as far as I can tell. And Im sorry for any animosity my previous blunt statement might have caused. Im sorry .... I was jaded
You need to point out the exact "over dramatic" comment you are talking about because no one else sees it.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
This gave birth to Mormonism's oppressively domestic and popularly conceived model of woman-hood -- the "domestic goddess" known as "Molly Mormon" and "Patti Perfect."
There is no evidence of this.
However (and sadly!), after Joseph died, his generous descriptions of what women *had* -- as "Queens and Priestesses" in the Kingdom of God -- were replaced by limiting pedestals labelled "wife and mother" -- or "Molly Mormon" and "Patti Perfect".
Or this.
Bazooka wrote:What would you find acceptable as 'evidence'?
I echo Bazooka's request.
I would also point out that Gia was not referring to scriptural references. She was referring to cultural changes within the LDS Community, i.e. how male leaders referred to and interacted with female leaders.
just me wrote:You need to point out the exact "over dramatic" comment you are talking about because no one else sees it.
I think Mktavish is either very young (adolescent) and just wanting to have some effect on the world like a teenager spray painting graffiti or is older and a little confused. Like our old friend Derick.
His language and thoughts seem a little disjointed.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Another interesting insight is that the cultural tenet of society had an effect on the Church even prior to the World War 2 era that Gia previously mentioned. As Just Me and I correctly pointed out, Joseph Smith established the Relief Society as its own separate entity which was intended to be equal to, not subordinate to the Priesthood.
When Brigham Young became the Prophet, and the Saints reorganized in Utah, he was hesitant to even allow the Relief Society the freedom to reorganize. When he did, he made the decision to appoint the Relief Society as an auxiliary as opposed to an equivalent to the Priesthood. My understanding is that women still gave blessings to the sick for a short time, and later even this was discouraged. His view was more along the tenet of society at the time that women, just like blacks, were considered property.
Mktavish wrote: How about we say that Mktavish likes to post while drunk and he really hasn't been around these boards enough (especially lately) to make that sort of assessment of liz ?
Since Justme asked though I will explain ... even though I hate to bring it up.
This stems from when Liz stepped down as a moderator and all the crazy stuff that was going on in the forums. I as only one person was not able to read it all ofcourse , but I did read a few. And infact I was sticking up for liz in one of them and was told by some others to just shut up. But this brief encounter in no way means I have all the awnsers on that situation or Liz's character for that matter , and infact I think there is a much deeper dynamic to this forum that I am not even aware of. Now you ask what the heck does this even have to do with the subject of this thread. And as I said I am clueless. I apparently just like to pop in and make random comments , while following people that I care about. That's all. Infact I don't really care about Mormonism and what they do as far as women are concerned. The only woman that is deep into it I care about is my sister ... but I have come to terms that she is doing exactly what she wants , as do we all.
So I guess in the future I should think about just saying howdy or sumthin? But I wouldn't count on it ... because I do like to drivel.
Your honesty does you credit, Mktavish. No harm in having a little sip before posting.
It is good to get a feeling for other members on the board before diving in.
We are a diverse group here and generally a little brighter then the people you may have run across on other boards.
May I suggest that you read along for a while and learn the nature of some of the other people posting here. You could well find some friends.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Quasimodo wrote: No harm in having a little sip before posting.
: Some environments are beyond all bearings - soberly.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
: Some environments are beyond all bearings - soberly.