Defending the Family Means...Feminism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jesse Pinkman
_Emeritus
Posts: 2693
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _Jesse Pinkman »

Lemmie wrote:
WaterDog wrote: Women in the church, at least the mature ones who have a least a modicum of emotional intelligence, DO NOT WANT ordination. That does not serve their ultimate objective, which is to reprogram the men. Women like the church. Men don't.

:rolleyes: More nonsense that feels so true in your gut that you decided to pull it out of your ass and share it with us?

Seriously, WaterDog, what crap. You are reaching ldsfaqs levels of obnoxious stereotyping.

Very true.

WaterDog, you are also overlooking the fact that Joseph Smith originally organized the Relief Society as a priesthood for the women. When the Saints moved to Utah, one of Brigham Young’s wives had to beg him to re-establish the Relief Society after the relocation took place. When he did, because he is a mysoginistic asshole, the Relief Society became an auxiliary organization rather than a priesthood for women that held equal footing.

Women in today’s Church have never had the opportunity to be ordained. Just because they don’t publicly seek it out doesn’t mean that it isn’t something they might desire.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB
_________________
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _Water Dog »

Jesse Pinkman wrote:So you’ve just heard talk.

Well, yeah, lol. What are you expecting for them to announce it in general conference? As for the house thing, you're telling me that your friend bought a house right next to you, and moved to be closer to you, and that's totally commonplace? I don't think so. It sounds like you simply have a friend in the same neighborhood. Sheri RELOCATED to be near Wendy after she married Nelson. You may not interpret that to mean anything, but I do. That is a very eyebrow-raising data point.

Again, I'm not a psychologist. I don't care to get into all the possibilities or quibble. Do some google searches. This is very strong gossip. I don't know these people. But I know people who know them, and they, in their opinion, confirm the gossip that "something" is up there. I trust their opinion. And I also don't really care. Seriously, who cares? But there are a LOT of people who confirm this gossip. Clearly, something is up with those two. in my opinion. I already said this, so just repeating myself. There may not be a "sexual" component to at all. I'm sure only Wendy and Sheri would know. In my opinion though, that little detail is largely irrelevant. People are so obsessed with the sex, what touched what. They may have never even exchanged a little hug, but are still emotionally all over each other. We could get into a whole debate about what "counts" as a relationship and where on some romantic kind of spectrum that relationship falls. And there are big differences between men and women in these regards.
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _Water Dog »

Jesse Pinkman wrote:WaterDog, you are also overlooking the fact that Joseph Smith originally organized the Relief Society as a priesthood for the women. When the Saints moved to Utah, one of Brigham Young’s wives had to beg him to re-establish the Relief Society after the relocation took place. When he did, because he is a mysoginistic asshole, the Relief Society became an auxiliary organization rather than a priesthood for women that held equal footing.

Women in today’s Church have never had the opportunity to be ordained. Just because they don’t publicly seek it out doesn’t mean that it isn’t something they might desire.

The church Joseph founded in the early 19th century is not the same as the Brighimite branch of the church and what it has evolved into in the 21st century. Seems an incredibly tacit thing that need not be pointed out. Jana Reiss did a very extensive study of women in the church and their feelings on ordination, and something on the order of 90% say they don't want it. Moreover, it is the women who are the most strongly opposed. The men are basically just going along with whatever the women want. Anecdotally, I've had this discussion with I'm not sure how many women, many dozens. They DO NOT want ordination.

Go do your own survey. I challenge you. Walk into random LDS wards, and poll the sisters in RS. Strongly opposed.

The only women I've come across who are interested in ordination are the obscure, angry, political feminist types. The man hating types with some kind of axe to grind. Millennial women who have been persuaded by voices outside the church that they should be upset over the whole ordination thing, that it's an insult to them. Look at Kate Kelly, lol. She's an angry B word. Terribly insecure. These are women who are not very "in" the church culture to begin with. Generally speaking, they just have issues. Women who are well saturated into the culture though, whether they happen to identify with liberal or conservative political issues, see the ordination issue in an entirely different light and strongly oppose it. Because they have the maturity to recognize it's a superficial thing. Just like you guys whining about the young women handing out towels in reaction to that recent temple change. This just isn't how the social dynamics work out. If the women were ordained, the men wouldn't have a reason to be there. It's that simple.

https://religionnews.com/2015/12/15/mor ... -findings/

http://mormongendersurvey.org/results/
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _I have a question »

Water Dog wrote:Sheri RELOCATED to be near Wendy after she married Nelson. You may not interpret that to mean anything, but I do. That is a very eyebrow-raising data point.


If true, it is. Can you point a fellow in the direction of some evidence that such a move happened?

Edit: Done my own legwork...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48369
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _Maksutov »

I have a question wrote:
Water Dog wrote:Sheri RELOCATED to be near Wendy after she married Nelson. You may not interpret that to mean anything, but I do. That is a very eyebrow-raising data point.


If true, it is. Can you point a fellow in the direction of some evidence that such a move happened?


Daughters of Bilitis Unite!

I hear that sister wives out in the great lonesome used to play priesthood games. :razz: All my peepstone will say is NSFW.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Jesse Pinkman
_Emeritus
Posts: 2693
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _Jesse Pinkman »

Water Dog wrote:
Jesse Pinkman wrote:So you’ve just heard talk.

Well, yeah, lol. What are you expecting for them to announce it in general conference? As for the house thing, you're telling me that your friend bought a house right next to you, and moved to be closer to you, and that's totally commonplace? I don't think so. It sounds like you simply have a friend in the same neighborhood. Sheri RELOCATED to be near Wendy after she married Nelson. You may not interpret that to mean anything, but I do. That is a very eyebrow-raising data point.

Again, I'm not a psychologist. I don't care to get into all the possibilities or quibble. Do some google searches. This is very strong gossip. I don't know these people. But I know people who know them, and they, in their opinion, confirm the gossip that "something" is up there. I trust their opinion. And I also don't really care. Seriously, who cares? But there are a LOT of people who confirm this gossip. Clearly, something is up with those two. in my opinion. I already said this, so just repeating myself. There may not be a "sexual" component to at all. I'm sure only Wendy and Sheri would know. In my opinion though, that little detail is largely irrelevant. People are so obsessed with the sex, what touched what. They may have never even exchanged a little hug, but are still emotionally all over each other. We could get into a whole debate about what "counts" as a relationship and where on some romantic kind of spectrum that relationship falls. And there are big differences between men and women in these regards.


First of all, yes, there are huge differences in relationships between men and women. And heavy emotional components normally do exist between close female friends. The emotional component between male/male and female/female friends is VERY different. Women share more and are much more open about everything with their female friends. It is typical for female friends to know MORE than the woman's spouse. Male friendships typically don't work that way.

It could very well be that Sherri and Wendy are simply very close friends with no other element involved. As far as relocation is concerned, there are many reasons why Sherri could have moved. You said yourself that you don't have confirmation of the exact reason she moved, just heresay. The fact that her move made you raise an eyebrow shows me that you don't really understand the depth of female friendships very well. Also, there are a heck of a lot of reasons why someone can relocate. The fact that she relocated closer to her friend could simply be a bonus. Home values can increase in various neighborhoods; property taxes could be better; location closeness to work. All of these are very typical reasons for relocation. Heck, maybe ward boundaries were re-established. I have known Church members to move for that reason as well.

Thanks for expanding. I also don't really care one way or the other. I just don't think that there is as much evidence to support a lesbian affair between the 2 as you do.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB
_________________
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Defending the Family Means...Feminism

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

I dunno. I haven't heard of too many buddies buying a house together unless it was to flip. They're either the wind beneath each other's wings, or they Gay.

I don't really care except other than they're just crass opportunists making money off the Mormon population. It's a bizarre arrangement one way or another.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Post Reply