I agree that attacking people is not getting to the root of the problem.
Did you have some specific examples of this in mind? I'm not sure what you mean.
Are you guys completely cool with your kids dating/marrying someone of a different race?
- Thread starter Sandy Braille
- Start date
I agree that attacking people is not getting to the root of the problem.
Did you have some specific examples of this in mind? I'm not sure what you mean.
One of the problems I've seen is, no matter how clear someone else is about something, someone else will find room for their own interpretation. This is actually one of the things that, as an active mormon, bothers me about many mormons. But I can only speak to what I have seen or heard, and I have been taught, specifically, that I do not have dominion over my wife and, further more, I am not absolutely necessary for her to obtain her final reward. However, our partnership is beneficial to both of us equally in this regard.
Another problem that arises is that much of the recorded doctrine comes from a time when, on a national (world?) level, men and women weren't socially equal. Things have changed, and policy has too, but it's easy to just go back to something written in the 19th century and say, "Well, there you have it. Mormons hate women." I'm not implying in any way that you are doing this, OB, it's just something that I felt was relevant to the convo.
This is well stated, and I agree completely. On the other side of the fence, I believe it's important to try to understand other's intentions, and maybe cut each other a little slack here and there. People are going to do and say things that are insensitive. Sometimes those people are just ********, but frequently they don't intend any harm, they just don't understand the gravity of their actions in the eyes of other people.
I don't know many guys that could shrug off that attack LOL If he came at her again, she carries a taser in her purse.
Apparently there were several other people that also told the guy to back off so the process wasn't being ignored. As to your last question, some people are just ******** and have ******** for parents. Either his daddy is like him or his daddy took no part in teaching his son how to treat women. I'm guessing he's not the type that would have opened the door for my daughter. There's a reason I look for these things.
well, I was being extremely "general", and on purpose. For example, I generally dislike the anti-Mormon hype centering on Mormon doctrines like black priesthood denial because whatever it meant individually among Mormons was never successfully enforced doctrinally by the LDS church, clear back to Joseph Smith, and whatever the hell it was doctrinally was never uniformly understood or believed individually. The net effect of the campaign to force the LDS church to conform to the twentieth century ideals was and will continue to be a net loss in the freedom column for all human beings who believe anything that either is wrong in fact, or even right in fact, when some majority of a culture or nation or the world deems it unacceptable for any reason.
The biblical designation of males descendants of Levi only being allowed to be priests, and having the right to live off tithes and offerings never drew any fire in the war on Mormons. Christianity's mainstream eased away from being a racially-based group like the Jews were, with the claim that baptism was equivalent to being adopted by Jesus and Abraham, and there was no racial distinction left in the leadership or priesthood concepts, but the Old testament precedent was never outed as wrong in any way. It was merely claimed that with Jesus there was a new order of things, so ordered by God. . . . I don't care if a religion or church decides only unicorns can be the congregations' queen bee, but if anyone wanted to leave a religion I'd want to make sure he/she could leave . Here in Utah, I support some organizations that try to help kids abandoned by, or trapped in any way within, some of the extreme authoritarian cult organizations.
I like the fundamental idea of all humans having as much liberty as possible, and more, but I would come down on the side of protecting people from abuse including verbal abuse "generally". Then I would begin to backpedal on protecting the State from critical comments by ordinary citizens, for example. But when it comes right down to it, calling a government official a totalitarian bootlicking stooge for the elites is just about as hateful as any racial slur. The devil is always in the details. . . . and people need to be free to hate as much as to love, whether it's the devil, a cartel, god, or people who are just different. . . . that they hate/love. Anyone denying that freedom to anyone just doesn't really accept humans as well as I'd like to see. and yah, I have some love and hate issues with every human organization including governments. . . . and probably every human as well. . . .
I just think that's the way we are, and always will be.
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.
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. 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.
You use clever words to slight and downgrade what others post, and leave a hint of condescension to seem and sound better than them. You say some token words to make it seem as if you are "searching for truth" or just want to "clarify" some things. 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.
Could it be you don't know you come across this way? I guess it could be possible, but for the smartest and most objective person on the board and in the world it doesn't seem likely.
In my experience, the real jerks are careful to adopt social niceties, to hide their jerkdom from people who don't see them often.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I absolutely have to disagree here. He can give an opinion about anything he wants about you or your thoughts, intentions, actions, opinions.... Just as you can him. Or you and I on one another.
And why in your flawed world of understanding words would your intentions not be proper subjects for my opinions? I say what I say, and it is my opinion that you are the way you are. My opinion is mine and can be about anything I want it to be about and on any subject I want it to be on.
Your statement is based an faulty assumptions and do not represent the meaning of what I said to you. Lets just assume you are a mortal person for a second here, and you are standing still and facing north. You can have multiple people close to you. You can have a person directly behind you that is equally close to you as a person standing to your right, and a person to your left, and a person in front of you. They are all equally close to you, and yet have a unique perspective of what you look like. Similar to this it is possible for multiple people to be close to God, and yet in different ways. [sarcasm] Please misunderstand this, I beg you. [/sarcasm]
Let me spell it out for you, but I highly doubt you would be willing to go the distance with me to understand the why.
I think a male-only priesthood is enlightened, and in perfect order not only with what God wants for us, but what is for the best good of all people of the earth.
Do you really want the why? It will be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but we will first have to track the rainbow from the beginning all the way to the other end to find the pot.
faulty assumption on the further from God part.... should we start at the beginning of the rainbow? I'm willing if you really want to.
And why would you not view "Woman up!" to be just as offensive as "Man up"? Doesn't sound like progress or any sort of accomplishment to me.
Sounds like just changing direction on the same bad road.
Your wording is yet again giving slights and digs to religious activity basically calling it all foolish. I wonder why I'm not feeling the sincerity from you.
To get to the point of what you are hinting at, there does need to be some sort of challenge of ideas to prove them out. I have verified what I believe, I have come to understand, I have challenged to see if it was true, and I have accepted what I have proven to myself to be true and try to live up to it to the best of my ability. I understand the cycle and the steps fairly well, and I can see when it appears that steps are being skipped. Nothing wrong with challenging ideas as long as it is part of the flow and the cycle of learning. To just sit and challenge without the other steps is just fruitless and a complete waste of time.
Someone could probably complete a PhD thesis just scribbling down what's being said in these last 20+ pages.
If they did, it would suck. <-------not fact, just opinion. Some people may even call it speculation, who knows.
Perhaps the "Priesthood" and these "leadership" positions are that compensation. Maybe that's why he chooses men to serve this way - to bring them closer.