From Mormon Women, a Flood of Requests and Questions on Their Role in the Church | NY Times

[babe]

While noting that there are differences between the "typical" or "average" man and their female counterpart, applying these differences as applying to all men/women is gender essentialism at its worst, and places both men and women into boxes, many of which are more confining than defining. Personally, I've always looked good in pink.

I'm pretty sure you look better in pink than in buff. . . . I could say the same thing about "blue" vs. some alternatives, as well, I'm sure.

I'd take "gender essentialism" as a high ideal, something equivalent to your progressive imperatives, I'm sure.

The high priests of marxism, socialism, progressivism, and every other form of statism are correct in their assessment that it is convenient to control the narrative and re-shape society in their own images. . . and even a necessity to their purposes, to make all of us human cattle "equal" in our chains, to make us manageable to their purposes.

I've been wondering what it will take to shake you from your delusions of grandeur as someone fit to instruct and inform all of us ignoramuses who just don't want to be your sheep.

I think we humans are in some respects glorious as we are. . . . by nature as well as by our credentials as "God-given" and "God-loved" creatures. People with idolatrous imperatives are hardly qualified to improve upon mankind. Liberty is my ideal, my idol so to speak. We have all the potential within ourselves to improve upon ourselves that any government can possibly have, no matter how many self-styled eggheads with their notions of how to manage the rest of us can imagine their ideals are "for the best", whether secular or religious in pretension. . . . .

the fundamental personal choice is sacred to our standing as human.

 

[Hantlers]

So do you believe that, generally speaking, the LDS church has allowed the works part of the equation to get out of balance with other similarly and seemingly 'important' things? I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts, in perticular, because you seem to be very fair with your own analysis and speak it as you see it.

This is totally un-related, but your works sentence reminded me of this phrase that I like.

'We are saved by faith, through grace, for works.'

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree that the works can get overwhelming and cloud the message, but it does seem to me that nearly every time Jesus taught directly about his gospel the lesson was followed with an admonition to do something, to change somehow. I have always had an issue with people who claim to be "saved" who never changed their lives at all, and they argue that accepting Christ is enough, while the continue with full on lewd and lascivious behavior. I think if you truly are "saved" it would be evident in your "works", not despite or apart from or even in contradiction of them. The New Testament is full of instructions of how to live (see the beatitudes, "let your light so shine", "be ye therefore perfect", etc.) that is is silly to think that there is NOTHING expected besides claims of belief. But there has to be a balance, it can't be just one with not even a nod to the other, imo.

 

[One Brow]

I'm pretty sure you look better in pink than in buff. . . . I could say the same thing about "blue" vs. some alternatives, as well, I'm sure.

I look good in reds and greens, as well.

I'd take "gender essentialism" as a high ideal, something equivalent to your progressive imperatives, I'm sure.

The high priests of marxism, socialism, progressivism, and every other form of statism are correct in their assessment that it is convenient to control the narrative and re-shape society in their own images. . . and even a necessity to their purposes, to make all of us human cattle "equal" in our chains, to make us manageable to their purposes.

I've been wondering what it will take to shake you from your delusions of grandeur as someone fit to instruct and inform all of us ignoramuses who just don't want to be your sheep.

Here, the shackles are the ones your traditions have put on other people. Gender essentialism tells us that the person genetically XY can be a female if they have a physical condition, like androgen sensitivity syndrome, but not if their difference between gene-typicality and gender occurs in the brain (inless the arbitrary essentialism is based on genes, but then there are other difficulties). Your ilk has decided the shape of the society they wish to impose on others, for the purposes of your own ease of classification, and decided to impose their control on whether and how people express their gender. You're the one demanding sheep here, by following of relatively rigid gender roles; I'm the one advocating for freedom and keeping society off of people's backs, in this case.

 

[green]

My father-in-law was ex-communicated (long before I met him). When I met him, he had been re-baptized. He never was able to get any further than that. He never got his priesthood back, and was basically told not to reapply unless significant changes were made in his life. He was disfellowshipped again later and now has been baptized into a "Christian church" (his words). Basically, he has a problem keeping his ****** in his pants, especially while married. I personally believe that if he is denied entrance, his actions will be a bigger problem with him getting through the pearly gates than his membership in any church will. Not that I am a judge in any way.

I think there is a lot to be said about this. I think the Church in general expects too much out of a lot of their leaders. And so many do it out of fear of being damned or judged harshly. As the Boy Scout leader, should I really use up my only week of paid vacation to take the scouts on a week long camp and not go on a vacation with my family? There are some in the Church who say yes to this. I say blow it up your ***. My priorities lay with my kids before someone else. I have seen so many members base their actions and decisions on what others in the church have done or what they think they should do. It's the "spirit of the law" vs. the "letter of the law". Should I not go to my nephews birthday party at Chuck E Cheese on Sunday so I can "keep the Sabbath holy"? No, I go to the party and have a crap load of fun playing games and eating pizza with him.

I think the bolded part is the key. If you read the Church manuals, and actually do what they tell you to do, then callings are easy and not that time consuming at all. Even for a Bishop. If you decide that God has anointed you the Savior of the South Utah Third Ward and are going to spend every night bending to every whim and cry from the congregation...yeah, it sucks you dry.

I had one Bishop who followed the Bishop's handbook for Sunday Leadership meetings. He outlined it his first week in the meeting. He said that if you had something that needed to be discussed this was the Church Handbook Policy:

1 - Call the Secretary before Thursday. Leave a BRIEF message explaining what the issue was, and if it was A, B or C level importance (A - needs to be done immediately, C - needs to be done sometime in the future).
2 - The Secretary would show up Sunday with a list of A, B, and C issues. The meeting would start. No scriptures or inspirational stories that take 30 mins to get through. Just work. Prayer, and then onto issues that fall in the "A" category. Once those were finished, if there was time, we would move onto the B, and C Categories. If we were out of time, then we dismiss and come back the next week (so, yes, some B issues would become A issues).
3 - The next week, the Secretary shows up with his list, but at the top of the list are any things that were to be accomplished from the last's weeks meeting. You cover that first, then the A issues, then check time, the either close or continue until time ran out.

The first Sunday came, no one had called the Secretary. The Bishop opened with prayer, looked at the list (which was empty), then called someone to say the closing prayer. The Relief Society, Elder's Quorum and other Presidents were furious. They had members of their groups that needed help. The Bishop opened the handbook, showed them the outline for a meeting, reminded them he went over that the week before, and then looked at the list again. Then he left.

From that moment on, every week the list was full, assignments were given and followed up on, families were blessed, and the meeting never took longer than 30 MINUTES. It was amazing.

My point in all this rambling is that, especially in Utah, the church is a HUGE part of a lot of people's social lives. And because of that, you do too much. Not to impress God, but to impress the bishop, or your neighbor, or whoever and you feel burned out or destroyed.

Just do what the handbook tells you to do. You will not get burned out, you will not be overworked, and you will do what you were put there to do. Let other people do their callings (and btw, if you let others do their callings, and they don't do them, and you don't help, that's a good thing. It then lets the leadership know that they need to make a change and get someone more competent).

 

[green]

PKM, I agree with what you are saying to a point but men also confess their "sins" to church leaders. Unfortunately, it is worse for women because they do not have the opportunity to do it to women where they might be more comfortable. Personally, I think confessing to any person is ridiculous and is used as a form of control to keep the members in line. I don't believe in judgment nor do I believe in hell. People are flawed and no earthly person is so righteous that he/she should be in judgment of another.

This is why women will hold the priesthood in the not too distant future. Besides, it's not like the Church has completely removed women from "Priesthood" duties. Most women do a lot of the Aaronic duties anyways, with upkeep around the church and the more "temporal" affairs of the Church.

As far as the judging goes, I get your point of view, but I don't think it is as "judging" as you think it is. Once again, in the handbooks given, there is literally a list of offenses, then a punishment guideline. If someone does A, they get between this and this, type of deal. The problem lies in Bishops that, again, feel that they have been called to save the world and do more than what is put in those handbooks.

 

[green]

However, I highly doubt the church doesn't want men to spend time with their children but in reality these non paying jobs do just that while putting an extra burden on the women.

The children jobs in the Church are by far the easiest ones. By far. Unless you decide to do more than is asked of you.

 

[green]

They do not have the full priesthood rights. Blacks use to have the priesthood back during Joesph Smith's time but it was taken away until 1978. So yes there is a possibility but the odds are not worth betting on.

I disagree. For a million reasons, but the main ones being:

1 - Women can already hold certain forms of the priesthood
2 - Women already do many priesthood duties
3 - Times are a changing. When the Church came out and essentially called Brigham Young a racist, you know that the Church is a lot more open minded than originally thought.
4 - There will come an issue where a Bishop takes advantage of a woman/girl and the Church will get a ton of pressure to allow women to confess to other women.

I don't think it is an issue of whether or not women will hold the Priesthood, because they already do. The issue is WHEN their Priesthood duties are expanded into more mainstream duties.

 

[green]

It's tricky.... Somewhat if a catch 22...

In the church and I assume many denominations and other religions we are taught to not only repent of sin but to also avoid it.. We are taught to avoid the very appearance of evil... This is taught in church as don't hang out with those people who sin less you fall into sin!!! Often many church members come off holier-than-thou because of this and very judgey!!!

Absolutely it's a catch 22. That is where the whole, "teach them principles and let them guide themselves" comes into play. Some people can delve deeper into sin to help others and stay clean themselves. Some people can watch a football game on Sunday, enjoy their family, strengthen eternal ties, grow their familial bonds, and grow closer to God. Others can't do that. They get angry, they ignore their kids, they curse and offend the Spirit. Does that mean everybody shouldn't watch football on Sundays? Nope. It means look in the mirror, and decide if what you are doing on Sundays is bringing you closer to God or farther away.

Take for example, movies. The Church has changed it's stance on movies. It no longer says, "No R-rated movies." It says, " Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is
vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in anything that presents immorality or violence as acceptable."

Big difference.

 

[green]

Mormons will respond to that emphasis with something like "Faith without Works is Dead", and will expect a member to keep the Word of Wisdom, pay a tithe, and do a lot of other things, calling their "walk" the Gospel. But I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis that it amounts to displacing God in your life with conforming to the "commandments of men".

This is such an interesting thing. Joseph Smith agreed with you. He instituted the Law of Consecration, where basically everyone actually "lived" the Gospel of their own free will. None of this jumping through hoops stuff. The problem was, us mortals are all greedy Gus's. I decided that I worked harder than you, so I should get three eggs instead of the two you got. OR I'm sick or working harder than you, so I am taking tomorrow off. Long story short, it busted.

God deals with us in the way that we respond to him. And for some reason, when he asks us to live our lives like him, take care of others, love thy neighbor, study his words and so on, we do the opposite. When he says, pay your tithes (so the money can go to help your neighbor), go to Church (so you can actually read and study the scriptures), obey the Word of Wisdom (take care of your bodies, don't lose control over yourself), do your home teaching (again, love thy neighbor), and so on sometimes, it actually gets done.

I'm sure God would LOVE to scrap Church, scrap callings, scrap the Word of Wisdom, scrap tithing, if we would show him that we could do what he asked without having our hands held every step of the way.

Those rules/laws/practices are in place because we, as mortals and imperfect, don't do those things without those guidelines.

 

[green]

While noting that there are differences between the "typical" or "average" man and their female counterpart, applying these differences as applying to all men/women is gender essentialism at its worst, and places both men and women into boxes, many of which are more confining than defining. Personally, I've always looked good in pink.

I'm amazed at how much a boy/girl/man/woman/child can accomplish when we treat them like they can accomplish anything vs treating them like that is a boy/girl/man/woman/child's job.

 

[green]

I've been wondering what it will take to shake you from your delusions of grandeur as someone fit to instruct and inform all of us ignoramuses who just don't want to be your sheep.

I don't agree with onebrow often, but I don't get this vibe from him at all. I get the feeling that he is trying to get us all to quit being sheep and think outside the box more. See what we are capable of, not just fall in line with everyone else.

 

[green]

I agree that the works can get overwhelming and cloud the message, but it does seem to me that nearly every time Jesus taught directly about his gospel the lesson was followed with an admonition to do something, to change somehow. I have always had an issue with people who claim to be "saved" who never changed their lives at all, and they argue that accepting Christ is enough, while the continue with full on lewd and lascivious behavior. I think if you truly are "saved" it would be evident in your "works", not despite or apart from or even in contradiction of them. The New Testament is full of instructions of how to live (see the beatitudes, "let your light so shine", "be ye therefore perfect", etc.) that is is silly to think that there is NOTHING expected besides claims of belief. But there has to be a balance, it can't be just one with not even a nod to the other, imo.

I agree. This goes back to the whole, "why does God make me pay tithing, do hometeaching, etc" thing.

If you are saved, if you are converted, if you truly believe what you say you do and are striving to be like God, then you will do those things without being asked to do those things.

You can't have faith and not have works. It's impossible.

You can have works without faith, but you can never have the other way around. Part of your faith moves you to works.

 

[LogGrad98]

I disagree. For a million reasons, but the main ones being:

1 - Women can already hold certain forms of the priesthood
2 - Women already do many priesthood duties
3 - Times are a changing. When the Church came out and essentially called Brigham Young a racist, you know that the Church is a lot more open minded than originally thought.
4 - There will come an issue where a Bishop takes advantage of a woman/girl and the Church will get a ton of pressure to allow women to confess to other women.

I don't think it is an issue of whether or not women will hold the Priesthood, because they already do. The issue is WHEN their Priesthood duties are expanded into more mainstream duties.

This has happened, far too much, already, and has already shown it is not an impetus for change. In one stake I was in, it ended with the bishop being called into another calling, and that was about it, even though 3 families were screaming for his head and he eventually was charged with child molestation and did time. But the church just moved him around, until their hand was forced, more or less, by the courts, and if they continued to do nothing it would have been worse than admitting to the black eye, dealing with it, and moving on. So he was disfellowshipped. I still don't get it. Is this the right place for SMH?

 

[Hantlers]

This is such an interesting thing. Joseph Smith agreed with you. He instituted the Law of Consecration, where basically everyone actually "lived" the Gospel of their own free will. None of this jumping through hoops stuff. The problem was, us mortals are all greedy Gus's. I decided that I worked harder than you, so I should get three eggs instead of the two you got. OR I'm sick or working harder than you, so I am taking tomorrow off. Long story short, it busted.

God deals with us in the way that we respond to him. And for some reason, when he asks us to live our lives like him, take care of others, love thy neighbor, study his words and so on, we do the opposite. When he says, pay your tithes (so the money can go to help your neighbor), go to Church (so you can actually read and study the scriptures), obey the Word of Wisdom (take care of your bodies, don't lose control over yourself), do your home teaching (again, love thy neighbor), and so on sometimes, it actually gets done.

I'm sure God would LOVE to scrap Church, scrap callings, scrap the Word of Wisdom, scrap tithing, if we would show him that we could do what he asked without having our hands held every step of the way.

Those rules/laws/practices are in place because we, as mortals and imperfect, don't do those things without those guidelines.

Church, tithing, etc…those things aren't just for us. It isn't just about us learning, or us giving. It's about worshipping God in every thing that we do. We shouldn't tithe because we're ordered to, we do it to praise God, to honor God. We shouldn't go to Church just to learn…we should go to learn AND praise/worship God. Those rules/practices aren't in place just to help us learn, but so that we can try to show the glory of God in everything that we do. Church isn't just about us.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I don't agree with onebrow often, but I don't get this vibe from him at all. I get the feeling that he is trying to get us all to quit being sheep and think outside the box more. See what we are capable of, not just fall in line with everyone else.

I admit I'm behind in this thread and may have missed the context, but believing in God no more makes one a follower/less independent thinker, than does being atheist/not believing in God.

 

[One Brow]

I admit I'm behind in this thread and may have missed the context, but believing in God no more makes one a follower/less independent thinker, than does being atheist/not believing in God.

I agree with that, to a degree. Some people use "believing in God" to mean following the dogmas of the Bible as they understand them. Choosing to follow dogmas does make a person, to some degree, a follower.

 

[Stoked]

I agree with that, to a degree. Some people use "believing in God" to mean following the dogmas of the Bible as they understand them. Choosing to follow dogmas does make a person, to some degree, a follower.

Then by the same token being an athiest, ground already blazed, makes one a follower.

 

[green]

Everyone's a follower to some sort of extent.

 

[Stoked]

Everyone's a follower to some sort of extent.

Exactly. Which is why I pay no heed to the mantra that religious people are followers. There are many types of religious people amd being religious does not make you a follower. Being alive does.