Clever wordplay to downplay priesthood sexism? ...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Yes, and I am simply making an observation about your observation.

What a 'deep' observation. ;)

We all know how hyper-critical you are of the Church ...

I don't think so.

... and how quick you seem to be in making men offenders for a word ...

Wrong yet again.

... and I saw your mischaracterizing a straightforward statement of belief as "a word play", and your irrationally seeing "gender-based qualifications" where none were intended, as, ironically, sexism ...

My point is that this new language isn't "straightforward," but (in my opinion) written to suggest that all members are treated identically when it comes to the priesthood, when in fact the primary qualification for holding the priesthood among LDS members is whether a member has a certain appendage.

[_Mister Scratch]

To me, there are at least two types of sexism:

a) illegitimately and irrationally discriminating between the sexes.
b) illegitimately and irrationally viewing things as sexists or in sexist terms.

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How so? Actually, what he was citing was a lack of gendered language in "Scotty Dog" Lloyd's article. Based on my experience with Bro. Lloyd, Rollo's citation of his article comes as no surprise. Lloyd is a big fan of the Church-sanctioned whitewash.

by the way, Wade: Does your support of the priesthood division mean that you are guilty of "Type A Sexism"? ; )

[_wenglund]

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

I wonder why the herd didn't cull you at birth

Apparently, they must not have been wracked with the kind of insecurity-based fear and prejudice that drives you to wish that I, as an innocent child, should have been removed and killed. Unlike you, they had more mature, reasonable, and humanitarian ways of viewing me at the time, let alone dealing with what they may have perceived as a future challenge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dr. Sunstoned]

This is a tangent from the SWK bio thread. This coming year, the MP quorums and Relief Society will be studying the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. I always liked SWK; he was one of my favorite Church presidents (his apparent obsession with sexual sin, notwithstanding).

Loran:

Its always invigorating when a critic exposes his own obsessions and fixations through a projection of them onto others with whom he disagrees. Textbook example, Rollo, so thanks (hint: Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing more.

Again, this way of wording things is technically correct: a by-product of the revelation is that all persons, including black families, can receive all priesthood and temple blessings, but the major point of the revelation (at least in the years after 1978) was that black men could now receive the priesthood. Women, whether white or black, are still banned from receiving the priesthood. Perhaps this recent wording in the Church News and SWK manual is a concerted effort to downplay that continuing ban?

Loran:

I've never quite figured out if Rollo is a flaming leftist or a flaming conservative fundie. To the extent that these to catagories may overlap, especially at their far fringes, we could have a kind of bastard offspring of a completely original kind here.

Regardless, the teachings of the churuch, historically, on the reasons why woman hold no Priesthood, are so bloody clear and have been so umambiguously articulated over generations that going around this sugar bowl again and again and again has become quite literally brain damaging.

Woman's and men's roles in the Gospel plan are somewhat different. There is an emphasis and deemphasis in various areas of life (home life vs. work, caring and nurturung of children as over against men's somewhat different type of role modeling and leadership). There is a differentiation of labors and emaphasis based upon complimentary differences between men and woman across several different dimensions, including biological, psychological, and emotional. The "patricarchal order", is a recognition of these dynamics as well as a divinely ordainded pattern through which his children will attain ultimate happiness and within which family and personal relationships between men and woman will be most productive to their progression.

The bottom line is that woman do not need the Priesthood. They are, when worthy, quite capable of excersing all the gifts of the Spirit, performing all the miracles, and having all the revelations and spriitual experiences men are. The one thing, the big pimple on the face of the Church in the minds of secularist liberal critics, is that woman cannot hold the Priesthood not for the spiritual power and authority it confers (which all worthy female members have through their faith in Christ and their living of the Gospel in any event), but for the ecclesiastical authority it confers; woman cannot be Bishops, Stake Presidents, Missions Presidents, or even ward clerks.

It is , in other words, as with feminst ideology in the secular world, about nothing more than institutional power, in this case, institutional power within the church. It will be an uderstatement for me to point out that the seeking of insitutional power and authority within the Lord's church puts one as far from both the letter and the spirit of that institution and its teachings as one could possibly go.

This is quite simple: men cannot seek, or angle, for positions, callings, or mantles of authority in the church, and therefore, neither can woman. Men are called to the Priesthood, and they are called to offices within it. Men are called to be Bishops, ward clerks, and Apostles. They cannot seek for, compete for, or ask, in any manner, for such callings. Its not their church; its the Lord;s church. it doesn't belong to the men or the woman of the church; it belongs to Jesus Christ.

He calls whom he calls. in what manner and in what time frame he so desires. We, whether men or woman, respond to that call. Woman should not desire or seek Priesthood authority anymore than men should, or can, seek or angle for offices of authority within it. If you get called as a Bishop, well, then you do, and that's a calling of authority and responsability, but its not something one seeks after, or runs around saying "why can't I be a Bishop, or a Stake President?".

Than's not how the church works, and that's not how its doctrines and teachings apply to the concept of ecclesiastical authority.

Loran

[_wenglund]

To me, there are at least two types of sexism:

a) illegitimately and irrationally discriminating between the sexes.
b) illegitimately and irrationally viewing things as sexists or in sexist terms.

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How so? Actually, what he was citing was a lack of gendered language in "Scotty Dog" Lloyd's article. Based on my experience with Bro. Lloyd, Rollo's citation of his article comes as no surprise. Lloyd is a big fan of the Church-sanctioned whitewash.

by the way, Wade: Does your support of the priesthood division mean that you are guilty of "Type A Sexism"? ; )

Were you capable of being reasoned with, I would be pleased to answer your questions. But my experience with you has repeatedly and invariably confirmed to me that you aren't capable of reasoning with (as further evinced by your post above), and so I won't bother, and will just await your expected self-delusional declaration of victory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

To me, there are at least two types of sexism:

a) illegitimately and irrationally discriminating between the sexes.
b) illegitimately and irrationally viewing things as sexists or in sexist terms.

I wonder if Rollo's OP may be an example of type 2 sexism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How so? Actually, what he was citing was a lack of gendered language in "Scotty Dog" Lloyd's article. Based on my experience with Bro. Lloyd, Rollo's citation of his article comes as no surprise. Lloyd is a big fan of the Church-sanctioned whitewash.

by the way, Wade: Does your support of the priesthood division mean that you are guilty of "Type A Sexism"? ; )

Were you capable of being reasoned with, I would be pleased to answer your questions. But my experience with you has repeatedly and invariably confirmed to me that you aren't capable of reasoning with (as further evinced by your post above), and so I won't bother, and will just await your expected self-delusional declaration of victory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okey doke. I can't very well engage in a victory dance, though. It's not much of a victory when one continuously competes with a habitual quitter.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is a tangent from the SWK bio thread. This coming year, the MP quorums and Relief Society will be studying the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. I always liked SWK; he was one of my favorite Church presidents (his apparent obsession with sexual sin, notwithstanding).

Loran:

Its always invigorating when a critic exposes his own obsessions and fixations through a projection of them onto others with whom he disagrees. Textbook example, Rollo, so thanks (hint: Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing more

So, by this logic, the "job as a Prophet" includes things like:
---recounting stories about how Cain is actually Bigfoot
---telling married couples that oral sex is a depraved sexual sin
---claiming that masturbation will lead to circle jerks, which will in turn lead to homosexuality.

Sorry, Loran, but this seems much more likely an instance of the Prophet being fallible, and acting as a man.

[_Coggins7]

Were you capable of being reasoned with, I would be pleased to answer your questions. But my experience with you has repeatedly and invariably confirmed to me that you aren't capable of reasoning with (as further evinced by your post above), and so I won't bother, and will just await your expected self-delusional declaration of victory.

Loran:

The core problem here Wade, is that he truly believes his endless romps around various sugar bowle is

A. Reasonable, and

B. Worthy of reasoned engagement.

I have made one attempt above, and awaity a reasoned rebuttle.

Loran

[_wenglund]

... and I saw your mischaracterizing a straightforward statement of belief as "a word play", and your irrationally seeing "gender-based qualifications" where none were intended, as, ironically, sexism ...

My point is that this new language isn't "straightforward," but (in my opinion) written to suggest that all members are treated identically when it comes to the priesthood, when in fact the primary qualification for holding the priesthood among LDS members is whether a member has a certain appendage.

And my point has been that a "certain appendage" is not a qualification for priesthood blessings (which is what the statement was about). That you irrationally and hyper-critically see it in those terms (thereby makig men an offender for a word), is a function of YOUR sexism, not the Church's or Scott Lloyds--in spite of your continued effort here to downplay it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
This is a tangent from the SWK bio thread. This coming year, the MP quorums and Relief Society will be studying the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. I always liked SWK; he was one of my favorite Church presidents (his apparent obsession with sexual sin, notwithstanding).

Loran:

Its always invigorating when a critic exposes his own obsessions and fixations through a projection of them onto others with whom he disagrees. Textbook example, Rollo, so thanks (hint: Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing more

So, by this logic, the "job as a Prophet" includes things like:
---recounting stories about how Cain is actually Bigfoot
---telling married couples that oral sex is a depraved sexual sin
---claiming that masturbation will lead to circle jerks, which will in turn lead to homosexuality.

Sorry, Loran, but this seems much more likely an instance of the Prophet being fallible, and acting as a man.

Loran:

1. I'll take authoritative sources for all of the above claims, so we can analyze them for their provenance and as to whether they constitute actual binding church doctrine or the various cultural or personal preferences of general or local leaders.

2. The above contains no logical or philosophical content relative to the point I made about Kimball and his response to the culture of the era in which he was President.

3. If you'd like to construct and place on the table an actual cogent argument in rebuttle to my main point, that the seventies were an era of unprecedented sexual decadence and irresponsibility, and that part of Kimballs's job as Prophet to the church and to the world was to confront those cultural attributes, so be it. If not, may a large, brightly colored Arachnid with a severe personality disorder bite tender parts of your body worlds without end.

Loran