When I post something posters deem irrelevant or dumb, I definitely prefer to be ignored than directly confronted on it.
Really? On a discussion board?
If I was constantly directly confronted then I would start to feel unwelcome on the board. I hope that’s not your intention.
Good point. Iwmp frequently states that she interprets my comments as something that "constantly directly confront(s]" her. My intention is to express my opinion. I think ignoring someone is not helpful in most discussions, but in this circumstance, it seems that the level of expressed emotional distress may call for it.
In an LDS gospel essay from about 10 years ago, titled "Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women" there is this:
Today, Latter-day Saint women lead three organizations within the Church: the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary. They preach and pray in congregations, fill numerous positions of leadership and service, participate in priesthood councils at the local and general levels, and serve formal proselytizing missions across the globe. In these and other ways, women exercise priesthood authority even though they are not ordained to priesthood office. Such service and leadership would require ordination in many other religious traditions. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng
[bolding added]
I find it interesting that the LDS church not only doesn't ordain women like they do men in this manner, they also don't pay women as they do men, as was mentioned earlier.
When I post something posters deem irrelevant or dumb, I definitely prefer to be ignored than directly confronted on it.
If I was constantly directly confronted then I would start to feel unwelcome on the board. I hope that’s not your intention.
It's difficult at times to know what Marcus's intentions are. One thing I can say is that it usually involves throwing a bomb into a discussion that typically derails or throws the thread off track and onto a person.
Trollish, in my humble opinion. Following people around to see what she can do to throw them off their game of having civil discussion. Nanny-ish behavior. Attempting to steer and control the direction of the thread as if she is in control.
I have never, that I can remember, had an actual discussion with her that isn't centered in 'he said, she said' contextual battles that have no real relevance to the discussion at hand.
In my opinion this thread is somewhat of a joke. Women in the church that believe in its teachings and are participants in the day to day, week to week, comings and goings of those that attend church and serve within wards and in their families know that they play an integral...if not the most important part...in the plan of life and salvation for God's children. In my experience growing up and then as an adult with my own family it is my firm belief that the women are 'the boss', the ones for whom most if not all decisions end up 'wrapping around' in the sense that they, the women, are the primary focus of lifting and helping so that they can then in turn do the most important work.
Raising and nurturing children and youth in whatever capacity they are able to do so.
The women and men that go back and forth on whether or not women in the church are looked upon with reverence and are respected are typically those that have some kind of ax to grind or ulterior motive of some kind that involves 'dinging' the church organization or its leaders in some way.
Again, the women in my life and those that I have observed over the years are not into the same kinds of so called issues that the critics and uber feminists are concerned with.
My two cents.
Honestly (and I know it's been said before), I think that certain permissions of authority and positions have been given to men in the church in order to keep them facing forward and in line. They have a tendency to wander and go off track much more than their counterparts. But at the end of the day, it's the women that run the show. Their voice matters a WHOLE lot.
The women at the general level of church leadership play a huge roll.
The women are the primary focus of lifting and helping so that they can then in turn do the most important work.
Raising and nurturing children and youth in whatever capacity they are able to do so.
Regards,
MG
Those women can raise and nurture the children in the kitchen after Sunday dinner when they are doing the dishes, while the menfolk meander into the parlor for a bit of theologizing. Good thing these elders don't light up cigars while expounding on the will of the Almighty, or the parlor would get a bit stinky.
Jana Riess has recently put out an article along a similar line.
As someone who has studied the way women’s voices have been amplified and silenced in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially online, I found it fascinating that three different statements about women and the church shared in the past week all reflected the same theme.
Overall, the church is telling women, “We need you, but stay in your place.”
The first statement came from Elder Dale G. Renlund, who spoke at a women’s conference in Arcadia, California. The second was from the global Relief Society Broadcast, also headlined by Renlund and reflecting views of church leadership. And the third was an official church Gospel Topics essay “Women’s Service and Leadership in the Church.”
The article is worth a read and Jana makes some very valid observations.
Going back to IHQ's reference to Jana Reiss, this jumped out of her article:
And whenever leaders bring up the Relief Society history, I am reminded of how the society lost its independence in the 20th century. While in the early days it was a side organization to the church, with its own leaders, fundraising and finances, the Relief Society is now run by the church and its male leaders. The new Gospel Topics essay discusses this, but it presents the expansion of male authority in glowing terms:
“The Relief Society once maintained its own programs, raised its own funds and administered its own budget. As the Church grew throughout the world in the 20th century, church leaders received revelation that led in the 1960s and 1970s to greater coordination, standardization and simplification of the church’s programs. This process, known as Correlation, included bringing all church organizations within general and local priesthood lines of authority.”
This narrative totally erases privileges women have lost from not being allowed to oversee their own organization anymore. Even if you argued the Relief Society was within the structure of the church, as the essay does, it is clear the women’s society needed to be “correlated” further under male leaders.
I added the bolding because the ONE committee, of the 7 referenced in the op link, the ONE on which no women serve is...you guessed it. The Correlation Committee.
The only reason why Christianity has survived so long is because of the women. Left alone, men would screw it up so bad it would be unrecoverable. Men get in charge in the first century church and suddenly women need to remain silent. If it wasn’t for his mother, Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t be a Saint. That situation is repeated over and over and over again…
It is the men who start wars and mothers who pay the price with the life of their sons. So sad.
If women had more say in Mormonism the books would be open and the mall next to church headquarters would be a research hospital. Nothing more can be said. The problem with Mormonism is only men handle the money, meaning they are in charge.
The women are the primary focus of lifting and helping so that they can then in turn do the most important work.
Raising and nurturing children and youth in whatever capacity they are able to do so.
Regards,
MG
Those women can raise and nurture the children in the kitchen after Sunday dinner when they are doing the dishes, while the menfolk meander into the parlor for a bit of theologizing. Good thing these elders don't light up cigars while expounding on the will of the Almighty, or the parlor would get a bit stinky.
I know you are saying this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but I have to say, in our house it's the men that are responsible for clean up after a yummy Sunday dinner.
If women had more say in Mormonism the books would be open and the mall next to church headquarters would be a research hospital. Nothing more can be said. The problem with Mormonism is only men handle the money, meaning they are in charge.
There is no arguing that men seem to have an inborn need to be 'in charge'. It's in the physiology I'm afraid. Women, generally speaking, let the men play their little games and show that they can be 'in charge' but my experience has been that the women are very influential. Even if it is often not out in the spotlight.
