No false statements, just telling you that's how I view you based on our "conversation", and your posts. Pure opinion, no true or false going on here. My "point of view", if you will.
What a lovely backtrack, but, no. My intentions are not proper subjects for your opinions. Speculations, perhaps, but not opinions. When you say I am being intentionally ignorant, then right or wrong, you are making a factual claim.
Secondly, if the Priesthood is composed of those who are further from God, why do the leaders of the congregation come from it? Why would you not want the leaders of your household and congregation to be the people closest to God?
Your lack of questions about what I believe and why, and yet your constant questions trying to find a contradiction in everything I say and what you think "my policies" are are very telling.
I'll be the first person to acknowledge that my questions are sharp, pointed, and designed to challenge. They are still questions that I am interested in the answer to. Sometimes, the answer is "your question is based on a faulty assumption", and then that is a good answer. Also, I am more interested in the Mormon culture as a whole, and have been interpreting your answers in that light. Perhaps I mistook your personal interpretations as such. If so, my apologies. For all I know, you think a male-only priesthood is archaic, and simply have not said so outright.
So, if you so desire, I am really interested in what you think about these extrapolations of what you said (again, "your question is based on a false assumption" is valid, although that will of course have a natural followup):
You described women as having a natural bond with God through creation (assumption on my part: birthing) that men don't have. You haven't described any sort of compensating closeness for men. In that light, if the Priesthood is composed of those who are further from God, why do the leaders of the congregation come from it? Why would you not want the leaders of your household and congregation to be the people closest to God?
It does not appear you challenge all ideas, just the ones you want challenged, and you are skipping a step in the whole quest for truth process. First you need to understand something before you can truly challenge it. After challenging something, there would also have to be rejection of something and acceptance of something. If you are not open to acceptance, then it is not a challenge for growth but a challenge with only winning in mind whether right or wrong. A challenge to find truth is one thing, a challenge to become the winner is totally different.
I'm not interested in winning nor in some ultimate truth. The goal of my challenge is reflection and change. I don't know if Hartsock was being facetious, but if he ever actually uses the phrase "Woman up!", or stops using phrases like "Man up", that's an accomplishment. If Stoked does decide to ask his wife (or ex-wife, other female acquaintance) about wether women understand men better than men understand women, and they have a conversation on the issue, that conversation will have ripples in Stoked's future conversations. Culture changes can't be dictated from above (at least, not easily), they have to be grown. Part of that is word choice. Our word choices have feedback on the our thoughts as well as the thoughts of others.
To me you are wearing a smiling mask of good intentions, but it covers something else (what I call an agenda).
Again, no true or false going on here. Go ahead and prove me wrong... or not... but this is my opinion.
I absolutely have an agenda, as described in my previous paragraph. Any time that seems unclear, just ask. However, it's quite possible to both have an agenda and want to gain accurate knowledge about what you are challenging. I would even argue that doing the first without doing the second is as foolish as any religious activity.
