Continued discussion about gender inequality in LDS church

[Marcus]

It sounds like they've finally realized that all possible explanations are irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynist, and are now defaulting to, "We just don't know."

In any case, a few policies have been improved in women's favor in the past decade, and more could be improved even without giving women the priesthood, so I hope this is a sign of further positive changes on the way.

The problem is when they say "we just don't know" and then add the condition "but God still wants it to be that way." That's not a rational response. It means they are conceding God is "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" when a far more rational response would be WE are "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" and do something about it.

[MG 2.0]

It sounds like they've finally realized that all possible explanations are irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynist, and are now defaulting to, "We just don't know."

In any case, a few policies have been improved in women's favor in the past decade, and more could be improved even without giving women the priesthood, so I hope this is a sign of further positive changes on the way.

The problem is when they say "we just don't know" and then add the condition "but God still wants it to be that way." That's not a rational response. It means they are conceding God is "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" when a far more rational response would be WE are "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" and do something about it.

"We just don't know" isn't the same as "God wants it to be that way". Unless you're putting words into God's mouth.

No one is going to "concede" that God is "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic."

C'mon.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Elder Renlund stated that the reasons for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination have not been revealed. A noteworthy parallel is that the reasons behind the priesthood restriction were not revealed for over 120 years. Then, lo and behold, it was revealed that it wasn't a restriction after all. It was just a policy. I would like to ask Brother Renlund if the gender restriction might ultimately prove to be similar.

Excellent question.

[MG 2.0]

Elder Renlund stated that the reasons for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination have not been revealed. A noteworthy parallel is that the reasons behind the priesthood restriction were not revealed for over 120 years. Then, lo and behold, it was revealed that it wasn't a restriction after all. It was just a policy. I would like to ask Brother Renlund if the gender restriction might ultimately prove to be similar.

Excellent question.

Whether it is or isn't, does it matter?

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

Are Church leaders worried that ordaining women would cut off their ability to reinstate polygamy?

[Marcus]

Are Church leaders worried that ordaining women would cut off their ability to reinstate polygamy?

Lol. You are not the only person I've seen asking that, by far.

[I Have Questions]

It sounds like they've finally realized that all possible explanations are irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynist, and are now defaulting to, "We just don't know."

In any case, a few policies have been improved in women's favor in the past decade, and more could be improved even without giving women the priesthood, so I hope this is a sign of further positive changes on the way.

The problem is when they say "we just don't know" and then add the condition "but God still wants it to be that way." That's not a rational response. It means they are conceding God is "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" when a far more rational response would be WE are "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" and do something about it.

”We don’t know” is a huge admission that they aren’t in communication with God and Jesus the way they claim to be. To not have an answer means they either haven’t asked (because they don’t want to know?), or they’ve asked and been met with silence.

If they were God’s only spokespeople on earth, you can be sure God would provide an answer on such an important question.

“We don’t know” is synonymous with “We aren’t who we claim to be”. Which they aren’t. Which is why the Church lags behind society by 50 years. The dither about sitting on their hands until they can safely follow societal trends without getting burned or sticking their necks out.

[malkie]

The problem is when they say "we just don't know" and then add the condition "but God still wants it to be that way." That's not a rational response. It means they are conceding God is "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" when a far more rational response would be WE are "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" and do something about it.

”We don’t know” is a huge admission that they aren’t in communication with God and Jesus the way they claim to be. To not have an answer means they either haven’t asked (because they don’t want to know?), or they’ve asked and been met with silence.

If they were God’s only spokespeople on earth, you can be sure God would provide an answer on such an important question.

“We don’t know” is synonymous with “We aren’t who we claim to be”. Which they aren’t. Which is why the Church lags behind society by 50 years. The dither about sitting on their hands until they can safely follow societal trends without getting burned or sticking their necks out.

When we allow We don't know why (WDKW) to stand without challenge, we may fail to notice that WDKW could be concealing the potentially more important WDKI - We don't know if.

Just as it turned out that the black priesthood ban was iffy, it may someday be revealed that the female priesthood ban was also iffy.

Or can anyone prove definitively that Mormon god is deliberately witholding the priesthood from our sisters?

[MG 2.0]

The problem is when they say "we just don't know" and then add the condition "but God still wants it to be that way." That's not a rational response. It means they are conceding God is "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" when a far more rational response would be WE are "irrational, contradictory, incoherent, or just plain misogynistic" and do something about it.

”We don’t know” is a huge admission that they aren’t in communication with God and Jesus the way they claim to be.

And you're the judge?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

”We don’t know” is a huge admission that they aren’t in communication with God and Jesus the way they claim to be. To not have an answer means they either haven’t asked (because they don’t want to know?), or they’ve asked and been met with silence.

If they were God’s only spokespeople on earth, you can be sure God would provide an answer on such an important question.

“We don’t know” is synonymous with “We aren’t who we claim to be”. Which they aren’t. Which is why the Church lags behind society by 50 years. The dither about sitting on their hands until they can safely follow societal trends without getting burned or sticking their necks out.

When we allow We don't know why (WDKW) to stand without challenge, we may fail to notice that WDKW could be concealing the potentially more important WDKI - We don't know if.

Just as it turned out that the black priesthood ban was iffy, it may someday be revealed that the female priesthood ban was also iffy.

Or can anyone prove definitively that Mormon god is deliberately witholding the priesthood from our sisters?

You’re quite right. The First Presidency, and in particular the Prophet, are portrayed as the only reliable source for answers to key questions that concern the entire Church. The Prophet is set apart as God’s only spokesperson. So if there’s a pressing question that needs an answer, the Prophet is a member’s go to source. If he doesn’t know, with all that “special” access to the source of all things, he’s either not asking, or he isn’t what he claims to be.

In terms of the particular question of this thread, a 100 year old white American male who sends his wife out of the marital bedroom in the middle of the night when he’s writing down random thoughts he’s had in his sleep, probably isn’t the best person to look to for an answer.

From what I’ve seen, the answer to these types of question comes first to society, and then God prompts the Prophet via revelation to follow along, belatedly. Take the recent female temple garment changes - they’ve happened as a result of women in particular, wearing their temple garments less and less. And women in hot climates have been asking for change for decades and decades. This isn’t revelation. It’s just old men finally giving in.

Priesthood Authority is their last bastion of male control. In fact, Priesthood Authority IS male control. And that’s all it is. It’s simply a device for ensuring men make the decisions and control the organisation. Given that they spend a great deal of time selecting like-minded individuals, I don’t expect it to change for many many years. In fact, I don’t think there’s a currently serving Apostle that has the backbone to change it proactively. It would take a mass walkout of women, a complete “strike” by women in terms of refusing to serve in callings, temple attendance, etc before a change “becomes revealed”.