Are you guys completely cool with your kids dating/marrying someone of a different race?

[Jazz Spazz]

1-God exists
2- God is my spiritual Father
3- God has a body of flesh and bone, and is male.
4- God loves me, and all of his children. (all people that have, or will live on the earth)
5- God while the ultimate authority, works with others to get things done. We'll call it the Godhead, which is made up of 3 distinct personages that work together, yet all is done in the name of the Father. Jesus Christ is one, who now has a body of flesh and bone as well, and someone we call The Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit who does not have a body of flesh and bone yet, but is a personage of spirit still.

6- God has a plan for us, his spirit children.

7- This plan has need of an "earth" for us as part of this plan.

The next bit will be a detour into the plan, because without an understanding of the plan the other pieces will not be whole.

8- This plan provides a way for all of God's children to become like he is if we so choose, and with some help because we can't do so alone. ( inherit all our Father has if we keep his conditions)
9- 2 main points of becoming like him include our spirits gaining a physical body, and becoming like him in character.
a. Body is easy, we get one when born.
b. Character is harder and has more to do with what we have when here, and this part is huge in that most of the Gospel of Jesus Christ revolves around this part.

If you are still with me here with no issues we are probably going to have to dig into the 9b part in more detail and it will be its own section.

 

[Bronco70]

Absolutely. I aslo am grateful for your attempts to provide answers, even if it doesn't always show. Thanks.

YW. Honestly, when discussing something with someone who has a different opinion, it really is more important to me that they understand my perspective than agree with it. I don't need to convert anyone to my way of thinking, but I don't want others to misunderstand my motivations, either. Sometimes it's difficult, because of my own shortcomings.

 

[PearlWatson]

1.Reasoning such as yours was used to justify Jim Crow laws. So, while I'm sure you have the most genuine intent, I'm not impressed with your reasoning.
2.There is no good evidence that gender plays a significant factor in parenting role, and your gender polarizations are mostly cultural artifacts, not innate characteristics.
3.While 'required" might be a little too far, such counseling is a very good idea.

1.Reasoning such as mine was used in the creation of women with boobs and a uterus, and men with dicks and more muscles mass. Your Jim Crow defamation is just nonsense.
If excluding women from Bishophood prevented women from making it to the Celestial Kingdom (highest Mormon level of heaven) or they were considered inferior or not as valued/trusted because of it your concern might matter, but they are equal in everything that matters.
2. Those assertions are laughable. Men and women are just different, observably so in parenting, but the polarities are both equally valuable in raising a healthy happy child.

 

[PearlWatson]

No, I understand all this so far. It seems quite familiar, but I'm trying to avoid anticipating what comes next, because I want to give you a full hearing out. So far, 1-7 could be compatible with a non-misogynistic dogma.

Even having the Godhead be males?

 

[One Brow]

The next bit will be a detour into the plan, because without an understanding of the plan the other pieces will not be whole.

8- This plan provides a way for all of God's children to become like he is if we so choose, and with some help because we can't do so alone. ( inherit all our Father has if we keep his conditions)
9- 2 main points of becoming like him include our spirits gaining a physical body, and becoming like him in character.
a. Body is easy, we get one when born.
b. Character is harder and has more to do with what we have when here, and this part is huge in that most of the Gospel of Jesus Christ revolves around this part.

If you are still with me here with no issues we are probably going to have to dig into the 9b part in more detail and it will be its own section.

So far, nothing you have said aplies differently to men vs. women, nor segregates them in some fashion. So far, no questions.

 

[One Brow]

1.Reasoning such as mine was used in the creation of women with boobs and a uterus, and men with dicks and more muscles mass. Your Jim Crow defamation is just nonsense.

I agree. It was nonsense when it was used to say people of a certain skin color were created to be servants, and it is nonsense today it is used to say that people of a specific gender are inherently better suited at homemaking/income gathering. I don't think that's how you meant it, because you probably think the brand of nonsense you buy into is justified. However, the form of the logical argument is the same, and equally invalid.

If excluding women from Bishophood prevented women from making it to the Celestial Kingdom (highest Mormon level of heaven) or they were considered inferior or not as valued/trusted because of it your concern might matter, but they are equal in everything that matters.

Catholics teach women women can go to heaven, and JWs that women can go to Paradise, yet that does not prevent either organization from being misogynistic. Why is it needed to exclude women from the Bishopric, or men from the Relief Society Presidency, to begin with?

2. Those assertions are laughable. Men and women are just different, observably so in parenting, but the polarities are both equally valuable in raising a healthy happy child.

You've been making these observations in how many different societies over how many centuries? You've figured out some magic formula that teases out difference taught from cultural immersion versus those innate to biology?

 

[One Brow]

Even having the Godhead be males?

Depends on whether the masculinity of the Godhead is part of the idealness of his nature, or a not-particularly-relevant feature, and whether this has impacts later on for the ways that women and men relate to this Godhead. You can be male without being oppressive.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

So far, nothing you have said aplies differently to men vs. women, nor segregates them in some fashion. So far, no questions.

So, are your trying to understand my point of view, or looking at what I say through the men vs. women lens? If the latter is true it is likely you will not truly understand me. There is no men vs women in me.

Without an understanding first, it will be impossible to get to the heart of the differences in view. Lets not jump the gun and look for differences just yet.

 

[silesian]

a final final thought.....

In each of those cases, you're only expressing half of the mental model. It's the father not signing his son up for dance lessons, the grandmother not buying dolls for boys and balls for girls, that expresses the contempt for the gender not benefited with regard to a particular activity.

Interesting point, thanks.

Two points: First, depending on how a hypothesis is framed, it can take contradictory data point to invalidate it. The example would be a hypothesis that "all sexism is necessarily misogynistic." If there is one case where this is untrue, the hypothesis is invalid. If a hypothesis is expressed more generally, such as "in many cases sexism is misogynistic" a single data point would not invalidate it (a hypothesis, by the way, that I would be inclined to believe). So taking an absolutist stand leave a position vulnerable.

Second, even the other half of this example does not necessarily mean that the father harbors contempt for a gender. Let's say the father does not sign up the son because he believes (mistakenly and with sexism) that all boys do not like dance, and therefore his son would be unhappy in the dance class. I'll submit that this too would be benevolent sexism, since there hatred/ contempt is neither expressed or believed. The belief could be completely misguided but not involve a general or specific hatred towards a gender.

To sum up, a person can be misguided and flat out wrong regarding sexism without having contempt in their hearts. I think we'll continue to disagree here, but I'll thank you for an interesting and respectful disagreement.

[And, by the way, my son takes dance lessons (hip hop) and loves it! : - ) ]

 

[One Brow]

So, are your trying to understand my point of view, or looking at what I say through the men vs. women lens?

Why not both? I'm genuinely interested in your point of view, but also keeping in mind the other reason for the conversation.

There is no men vs women in me.

Of course not. You just believe there is some innate reason women should not be bishops (not sure about prophets) that you will at some point be working into this conversation, which has everything to do with this innate difference between women and men, but since you don't have any personal mean feelings about it, you can declare that ir is not about women vs. men. Did I misunderstand that in some way?

Without an understanding first, it will be impossible to get to the heart of the differences in view. Lets not jump the gun and look for differences just yet.

As I said earlier, I am doing my best not to anticipate your next points. To assume I know what they are would be arrogant of me and unfair to you.

 

[One Brow]

Interesting point, thanks.

Two points: First, depending on how a hypothesis is framed, it can take contradictory data point to invalidate it. The example would be a hypothesis that "all sexism is necessarily misogynistic." If there is one case where this is untrue, the hypothesis is invalid. If a hypothesis is expressed more generally, such as "in many cases sexism is misogynistic" a single data point would not invalidate it (a hypothesis, by the way, that I would be inclined to believe). So taking an absolutist stand leave a position vulnerable.

Second, even the other half of this example does not necessarily mean that the father harbors contempt for a gender. Let's say the father does not sign up the son because he believes (mistakenly and with sexism) that all boys do not like dance, and therefore his son would be unhappy in the dance class. I'll submit that this too would be benevolent sexism, since there hatred/ contempt is neither expressed or believed. The belief could be completely misguided but not involve a general or specific hatred towards a gender.

To sum up, a person can be misguided and flat out wrong regarding sexism without having contempt in their hearts. I think we'll continue to disagree here, but I'll thank you for an interesting and respectful disagreement.

[And, by the way, my son takes dance lessons (hip hop) and loves it! : - ) ]

Sexism will either be misogynistic or misandristic, simply because if there is no inferiority, there is no need to segregate.

Humans are complex beings. I think you can love and still have contempt for certain aspects of a person (in fact, my father-in-law is a living example). So, I see the hypothetical father who does not enroll his son in dance classes for reasons of sexism as expressing contempt for his son's desires/abilities/potential to dance, and I don't see how that means he is not in many other ways a loving father.

 

[PearlWatson]

I agree. It was nonsense when it was used to say people of a certain skin color were created to be servants, and it is nonsense today it is used to say that people of a specific gender are inherently better suited at homemaking/income gathering. I don't think that's how you meant it, because you probably think the brand of nonsense you buy into is justified. However, the form of the logical argument is the same, and equally invalid.

Catholics teach women women can go to heaven, and JWs that women can go to Paradise, yet that does not prevent either organization from being misogynistic. Why is it needed to exclude women from the Bishopric, or men from the Relief Society Presidency, to begin with?

You've been making these observations in how many different societies over how many centuries? You've figured out some magic formula that teases out difference taught from cultural immersion versus those innate to biology?

I'm bored with your defamation already. It has come down to exclusivity of position based on meaningful differences and practical role differentiation.

It is just a matter of fact that women have babies and breasts to feed them, nesting hormones, and multitasking brains, which suits them for fulfilling the role of raising the children. I guess we could pretend men take on the provider role as a matter of default, or acknowledge that they have the hormones and physicality to provide and protect and we could go even further as Mormon's have and say that is their god-given role.

I don't know the answer to "Why is needed to exclude women from the bishopric or men from the relief society?" Maybe men have exclusivity in priesthood/and position of Bishop because women have exclusivity in having babies. It could be considered a matter of practicality since babies are a lot of work. Maybe it has to do with the same reason men and women have different restroom facilities, or why the Utah Jazz doesn't have women on their team. Isn't it telling that the exclusivity goes both ways?
Why is it needed for women to be bishops and men to be relief society leaders just for the sake of some worthless need for a sense of universal fairness or equality?

Role differentiation, for innate or practical reasons doesn't mean inequality when they both are valued, needed, and get one to the same outcome.