The Ban has not been lifted....

[_guy sajer]

Ya know, I don't know what the stink is about Fox News. I kinda like it. I mean, at least they have the courage to put up proponents from both sides of an issue to have a live debate. I don't recall seeing anything like that on CNN. Bill O'Reiley for example, always starts out talking about a controversial topic, he gives his take on it, and then he presents one or two, sometimes three, people who disagree with him, and he asks them to tell him why he is wrong. I love that. He strikes me as a fairly reasonable fellow. I don't know what views he holds that drives people nuts.

It [Fox News] is simply one of the egregious examples of what passes as news these days. News is hardly a fitting name for it. It is ideological brainwashing, misdirection, and infotainment all around. It contributes to the astounding degree of ignorance of the American electorate rather than improving the situation. In short, it is a travesty, if one chooses to judge it by standards of old fashioned journalism. As a dog and pony show it is first rate.

What constitutes "old fashioned" journalism. What's your benchmark?

This strikes me as an example of false nostalgia. In the good ol' days of yore, many journalists were far, far les circumspect than today and media outlets were awash in yellow journalism of the rankest sort.

[_Trevor]

What constitutes "old fashioned" journalism. What's your benchmark?

This strikes me as an example of false nostalgia. In the good ol' days of yore, many journalists were far, far les circumspect than today and media outlets were awash in yellow journalism of the rankest sort.

I think there was an era in the mid to late 20th century in which television news (the evening news) was not primarily about human interest stories and entertainment icons. Was it perfect? Was there a lack of ideological bent? No and no. These days there is a preponderance of useless information that passes as news and commentary that quite clearly brings ideology to the fore. While there may not have ever been a one true gospel of news, what television news has devolved to now is really laughable or, rather, pathetic.

You may think it is false nostalgia. I maintain that there is an appreciable difference.

[_krose]

I once heard Professor Ed Firmage (UofU PoliSci) predict that the women/priesthood policy would eventually be reversed, due to the fact that the ban is just custom rather than doctrine that is based on scripture. That surprised me, but I couldn't think of any scriptural basis either. However, that was before the "proclamation," which seems to set traditional 1950s-style gender roles in stone (is that considered scripture?).

As for women "not wanting" the priesthood, very few "good girls" would dare say they do in the church climate that stresses obedience so strongly. Openly wanting or talking of equality would get you labeled as a feminist, and that's something that the church (and popular culture at large, to a lesser extent) has successfully demonized.

[_dartagnan]

With all due respect Kevin, how do you know women don't care to be priests?

Just my 20 years experience in the Church. I have yet to meet a single woman who complained about it. Whenever the issue does happen to arise, it is usually dealt with in sarcasm. Women in the LDS Church are under enough pressure as it is, so why in the hell would they want o take on more responsibilities that are entailed with priesthood?

Are you surprised that in a culture that teaches women from birth that this is a role reserved for men that there is not a great hue and cry from women to be priests?

I'm not suprised because I don't think there is anything to complain about. You only hear complaints from fringy liberal progressives. And even they are far and few inbetween.

If the opportunity were made available to them, would they in mass say "no thank you?"

No, but not for teh reasons you're thinking. They would say yes for teh same reasons most would probably accept polygamy if they were asked to. But that doesn't mean they really want it.

[_the road to hana]

Dang! I am going to have to leave the message board for a while. I think I am hallucinating. I agree with everything Dartagnan has said here.

You obviously haven't been around the boards long enough. I'm sure there are plenty of people who've said that regarding Kevin at one time or another, on both sides of the aisle.

[_guy sajer]

With all due respect Kevin, how do you know women don't care to be priests?

Just my 20 years experience in the Church. I have yet to meet a single woman who complained about it. Whenever the issue does happen to arise, it is usually dealt with in sarcasm. Women in the LDS Church are under enough pressure as it is, so why in the hell would they want o take on more responsibilities that are entailed with priesthood?

Because it provides additional opportunities to minister to others. Believe it or not, there are actually a fair number of people who find fulfillment in giving spiritual guidance to others or in sheparding the flock. Granted, in Mormondom much of the priesthood work is busy work, but the desire to minister and act in "managerial" capacity, as it were, it not limited to men.

Are you surprised that in a culture that teaches women from birth that this is a role reserved for men that there is not a great hue and cry from women to be priests?

I'm not suprised because I don't think there is anything to complain about. You only hear complaints from fringy liberal progressives. And even they are far and few inbetween.

I'm really surpised to find you engaging in gross stereotypes like this. I mean, how is what women are saying in public an barometer given the social sanctions imposed on those who do speak out, in addition to the extreme peer pressure to go along publicly? Haging around in the DAMU for as long as you have, I'd thought you'd perceive that there is a reasonably strong (not general but also not trivial) undercurrent of discontent among women. Not all of these women are fringly liberal progressives.

Honestly, Kevin, I can well imagine someone making the exact same arguments back in the early 20th century viz the women's campaign for the right to vote.

More, what's wrong with being a "liberal progressive?" I think that time has demonstrated that liberal progressives are more often than not on the "right" side of issues (as seen by further events).

[_Roger Morrison]

OK, it was lifted for a few folks but it is still in place for half the LDS population.

I find it interested how the media (thank you Mitt), has recently discussed the LDS Priesthood ban for black folks of African descent, but as far as I know, has not mentioned the fact that the ban is still alive and well for women.

In this country, moving toward equality and basic human rights, I find it strange that this wouldn't at least be minimally addressed by someone.

Why is it wrong for the LDS church to ban blacks from the Priesthood but discrimination toward women is not even a blip on the screen?


~dancer~

Hi TD, a good question. Makes one wonder how deep do journalists really want to go? Easy to poke around in the past. More for amusment than to address issues of current significance.

THAT issue of course remains the ancient rites and mights of males. Those who unfortunately remain the Corp & Institutional puppeteeres who select the odd token woman. Barbars Walters, Lesslie Stall, and a small # of others. Just the way it is.

For how long? Remains THE question. The answer: When more women assert themselves, as You do my Friend! Keep swinging! Warm regards, Roger