For Coggins Concerning the Role of Women: Probably Off Topic

[_Coggins7]

You forgot the sexual gratification meat dolls. I'm still trying to contact Tarantino to see if he wants to do anything with that idea.

[_Yoda]

Further, since woman can and have performed all of the same miracles and through faith can act as channels for the same powers and gifts of the Spirit as men, in what sense do woman need to have the Priesthood?

Agreed. And in the early days of the Church, women administered to the sick, and performed priesthood ordinances. Women still perform priesthood ordinances in the temple.

My understanding is that Joseph Smith didn't have a problem with women holding priesthood power and priviledges. It was one of the reasons that the Relief Society was formed. Brigham Young, however, "dummied down" much of the organization, and did away with a lot of the duties women had been performing, such as administering to the sick.

Am I off-base here? If there are references on some of this, I would really like to read about it, so if anyone can suggest a good book or a website following some of this timeline, I would appreciate it.

If my understanding of events is true, then my question to Coggins and Gaz (and any other LDS apologist who would like to answer) is why was this change necessary?

[_harmony]

Further, since woman can and have performed all of the same miracles and through faith can act as channels for the same powers and gifts of the Spirit as men, in what sense do woman need to have the Priesthood?

Agreed. And in the early days of the Church, women administered to the sick, and performed priesthood ordinances. Women still perform priesthood ordinances in the temple.

My understanding is that Joseph Smith didn't have a problem with women holding priesthood power and priviledges. It was one of the reasons that the Relief Society was formed. Brigham Young, however, "dummied down" much of the organization, and did away with a lot of the duties women had been performing, such as administering to the sick.

Am I off-base here? If there are references on some of this, I would really like to read about it, so if anyone can suggest a good book or a website following some of this timeline, I would appreciate it.

If my understanding of events is true, then my question to Coggins and Gaz (and any other LDS apologist who would like to answer) is why was this change necessary?

Actually, it was Joseph F Smith that moved Relief Society from being on equal status with the priesthood to being a priesthood auxilliary. It's documented in Women and Authority. http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/wo ... htm#Mormon The damage that man did to LDS women is unestimatable. If he's in the CK, you can bet I'm not going in.

[_Yoda]

Thanks, Harmony! :)

I'll have a look.

[_Jersey Girl]

Loran,

What about the differences in the way male/females think and process? Females tend to be multitask thinkers, males linear thinkers. I haven't seen that mentioned.

Jersey Girl

[_Coggins7]

I have no knowledge of Brigham Young dumbing down anything. Nothing has changed about woman performing miracles or administering to the sick. They do not, and need not, perform the exact Priesthood ordinance, using the annointed oil, as men are required under normal circumstances to do, but need only exercise faith. My wife has, on two occasions, administered to me in a time of severe sickness, and in both cases, the healing was immediate and acute, as acute as was the pain involved.

She did not use oil, or lay her hands on me in the manner prescribed for Preisthood holders, but the effect was the same. In any case, the Lord has the right to add, take away, and modify as he sees fit, from time to time, in his church, and I don't second guess him on that.


Loran

[_harmony]

I have no knowledge of Brigham Young dumbing down anything. Nothing has changed about woman performing miracles or administering to the sick. They do not, and need not, perform the exact Priesthood ordinance, using the annointed oil, as men are required under normal circumstances to do, but need only exercise faith. My wife has, on two occasions, administered to me in a time of severe sickness, and in both cases, the healing was immediate and acute, as acute as was the pain involved.

She did not use oil, or lay her hands on me in the manner prescribed for Preisthood holders, but the effect was the same. In any case, the Lord has the right to add, take away, and modify as he sees fit, from time to time, in his church, and I don't second guess him on that.


Loran

Much has changed, Loran. Your ignorance is showing. Follow the link, and learn how much priesthood power women held in the beginning of the church, and then read how Joseph F Smith changed it... when, why, and especially how. "The Lord"? Not hardly. Man. A man... Joseph F Smith. There was no revelation. The Lord had nothing to do with it.

[_Coggins7]

Actually, it was Joseph F Smith that moved Relief Society from being on equal status with the priesthood to being a priesthood auxilliary. It's documented in Women and Authority. http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/wo ... htm#Mormon The damage that man did to LDS women is unestimatable. If he's in the CK, you can bet I'm not going in.

When the time comes that any of the critics are able to use sources, any sources other than material by Signature Books as support for their assersions, intellectual credibilty will be right around the next corner. Works by authors associated with this binder are quoted as if they are, by definition, the last word on the subject or reliable on their face.

There is nary a book that has ever come of Signiture's presses that doesn't have a preconcieved, and many times, fashionable ideological ax to grind with the chruch, and many of us are aware of the fact that objectivity is not always in adaquate supply at Signiture.

Loran

[_harmony]

Actually, it was Joseph F Smith that moved Relief Society from being on equal status with the priesthood to being a priesthood auxilliary. It's documented in Women and Authority. http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/wo ... htm#Mormon The damage that man did to LDS women is unestimatable. If he's in the CK, you can bet I'm not going in.

When the time comes that any of the critics are able to use sources, any sources other than material by Signature Books as support for their assersions, intellectual credibilty will be right around the next corner. Works by authors associated with this binder are quoted as if they are, by definition, the last word on the subject or reliable on their face.

There is nary a book that has ever come of Signiture's presses that doesn't have a preconcieved, and many times, fashionable ideological ax to grind with the chruch, and many of us are aware of the fact that objectivity is not always in adaquate supply at Signiture.

You asked for a reference. You have it. Like it or lump it, it doesn't matter to me. That doesn't change the sources she uses, or their veracity. You are saying the official minutess of early Relief Society meetings, kept in the church history, are suspect? Uh huh. You're full of horse manure, Loran, just like usual.



Loran[/quote]

[_Coggins7]

Loran,

What about the differences in the way male/females think and process? Females tend to be multitask thinkers, males linear thinkers. I haven't seen that mentioned.

Males do tend to be more linear thinkers (which makes them such good engineers) and woman seem to be more intuitive and "horizontal", if I may use that term (which may make woman very good psychothrapists?). I tend to do both, which may be both a curse and a blessing, because although my left brain, since childhood, has come around very nicely (with limitations. At very high levels of abstraction, such as mathematics, I simply shut down. I have little trouble with natural language, but metalanguage and highly abstract symolism, such as mathematics and symbolic logic, drive me nuts), I'm primarily right brained. I've always had a very vivid, deep, and creative imagination, and its always come very easy to me to go off in all kinds of directions, as far as thought or ideation, at the same time. This can create a problem as to fucusing on one thing at at a time and staying with it to completion, but its just something that has to be disciplined.

When someone aske me a philosophical question, something that's not easily pinned down or involves perhaps some subtle nuance, my mind goes immiedately into a kind of free association, not a linear step one, two, three kind of thing. If it comes down to a rigorous logical arugment, I can do that, but who knows where I may start. I don't know if this is the kind of thing your getting at or not. I know that many men are capable of focusing intensly on something to the exclusion of all else (Thomas Eddison, for example) and I guess I do do that. When I get involved in writing, working on my books, or thinking up ideas for a story, or involved in a stimulating book, I don't want to be bothered and I can finish some books in one sitting, only eating when obvious discomfort ensues.