Continued discussion about gender inequality in LDS church

[I Have Questions]

Trying to bypass the lazy learner who seems focused on attacking the poster rather than the poster’s content:

”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”.

[MG 2.0]

Trying to bypass the lazy learner who seems focused on attacking the poster rather than the poster’s content:

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”.

So...

Prompt: Where are the weaknesses in this poster's post?

Oversimplification of Prophetic Role: The post presents a very black-and-white view of the Prophet's role as the only source of answers. While the First Presidency holds a unique position, the Church encourages members to seek personal revelation, counsel with local leaders, and study scripture. Reducing the process to solely relying on the Prophet ignores these other avenues.

Ad Hominem Attack: The second paragraph focuses on the Prophet's age, race, gender, and a speculative account of his personal life. This is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the person rather than the validity of their teachings or role. These personal characteristics are irrelevant to the spiritual authority within the Church's structure.

Generalization and Speculation: The assertion that societal changes always precede revelation and that the Prophet merely "follows along belatedly" is a generalization based on limited examples. While societal influences can play a role, the process of revelation is understood within the Church as direct communication from God, which isn't necessarily dictated by public opinion. The claim about the garment changes being solely due to decreased wearing and pressure is speculative and lacks direct evidence of the motivations behind the changes.

Cynical Interpretation of Priesthood Authority: The post presents a highly cynical view of priesthood authority as solely a tool for "male control." While the current leadership structure is male, this perspective disregards the Church's teachings about the divine origin and purpose of priesthood authority for blessing all of God's children, both men and women. It also overlooks the significant contributions and influence of women in the Church.

Conspiracy Theory Framing: The idea that leaders "spend a great deal of time selecting like-minded individuals" to maintain male control leans towards a conspiracy theory without providing concrete evidence.

Dismissal of Agency and Individual Revelation: The post suggests that change will only occur through mass protest, seemingly dismissing the possibility of individual spiritual experiences and the agency of Church leaders to receive and act on revelation.

Lack of Nuance: The entire post lacks nuance, presenting a polarized view of leadership and the process of change within the Church. It doesn't acknowledge the complexities involved in guiding a global religious organization.

In essence, while the poster raises points of potential discussion and expresses frustration, the arguments are weakened by oversimplification, personal attacks, speculation, and a lack of consideration for alternative perspectives within the Church's teachings and practices.

Gemini A.I.

Might have to start from there.

Regards,
MG

[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.

It’s as if the men leading Mormonism have created God in their own image.

[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.

It’s as if the men leading Mormonism have created God in their own image.

That criticism can be thrown at anyone that claims to speak for or speak to God.

Got milk?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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”.

Gonna drop it?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Bypassing the troll, who is focused on attacking the poster rather than discussing the poster’s content, yet again...

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.

It’s as if the men leading Mormonism have created God in their own image.

Exactly. And your post about "their own image" that LDS leaders seem to use was spot on:

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”.

[MG 2.0]

Bypassing the troll, who is focused on attacking the poster rather than the poster’s content, yet again...

It’s as if the men leading Mormonism have created God in their own image.

Exactly. And your post about "their own image" that LDS leaders seem to use was spot on:

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”.

Prompt: Where are the weaknesses in this poster's post?

Oversimplification of Prophetic Role: The post presents a very black-and-white view of the Prophet's role as the only source of answers. While the First Presidency holds a unique position, the Church encourages members to seek personal revelation, counsel with local leaders, and study scripture. Reducing the process to solely relying on the Prophet ignores these other avenues.

Ad Hominem Attack: The second paragraph focuses on the Prophet's age, race, gender, and a speculative account of his personal life. This is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the person rather than the validity of their teachings or role. These personal characteristics are irrelevant to the spiritual authority within the Church's structure.

Generalization and Speculation: The assertion that societal changes always precede revelation and that the Prophet merely "follows along belatedly" is a generalization based on limited examples. While societal influences can play a role, the process of revelation is understood within the Church as direct communication from God, which isn't necessarily dictated by public opinion. The claim about the garment changes being solely due to decreased wearing and pressure is speculative and lacks direct evidence of the motivations behind the changes.

Cynical Interpretation of Priesthood Authority: The post presents a highly cynical view of priesthood authority as solely a tool for "male control." While the current leadership structure is male, this perspective disregards the Church's teachings about the divine origin and purpose of priesthood authority for blessing all of God's children, both men and women. It also overlooks the significant contributions and influence of women in the Church.

Conspiracy Theory Framing: The idea that leaders "spend a great deal of time selecting like-minded individuals" to maintain male control leans towards a conspiracy theory without providing concrete evidence.

Dismissal of Agency and Individual Revelation: The post suggests that change will only occur through mass protest, seemingly dismissing the possibility of individual spiritual experiences and the agency of Church leaders to receive and act on revelation.

Lack of Nuance: The entire post lacks nuance, presenting a polarized view of leadership and the process of change within the Church. It doesn't acknowledge the complexities involved in guiding a global religious organization.

In essence, while the poster raises points of potential discussion and expresses frustration, the arguments are weakened by oversimplification, personal attacks, speculation, and a lack of consideration for alternative perspectives within the Church's teachings and practices.

Gemini A.I.

IHQ put up a weak post. Your "spot on" response was weak. Nothing there. No substance.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

(This is the same type of thread trashing and trolling that mg 2.0, a.k.a. MG, a.k.a. mentalgymnast, did to grindael. Hopefully it has run its course this time and we can move on with the topic now, but I hold no illusions.)

Back to the topic--I quoted ihq's response to malkie earlier:

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...

This idea of revelation guiding the LDS church position on this is a bit murky, and Renlund's address (which was partially quoted earlier in the thread) regarding gender inequality in particular with respect to the priesthood didn't really help:

LDS Apostle Dale G. Renlund addressed gender inequality in priesthood ordination. He acknowledges the church’s gender imbalance but quickly pivots to uncertainty: “The reason for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination has not been revealed.” This statement is designed to prevent further questioning while implying that the answer, if there is one, belongs only to God. He then warns that “any proposed reason… is speculative,” which serves as a way to dismiss critical discussion while absolving leadership of any responsibility to provide clarity. By framing speculation as dangerous, he discourages members from thinking critically about these issues. The refusal to address gender inequality is not due to a lack of revelation but a reluctance to challenge entrenched power structures.

Despite claiming no one knows why women are excluded from ordination, he simultaneously asserts that the “asymmetry” (what normal people call prejudice or sexism) cannot be changed simply because people want it to. This is a contradiction: if there is no divine revelation supporting this inequality, why should members accept it as immutable? Why assume the asymmetry is intentional rather than a cultural holdover? His phrasing suggests that obedience to the status quo is more important than the pursuit of truth or fairness....

https://wasmormon.org/church-admits-gen ... to-change/

[bolding added by me.]

Putting aside the revelation inconsistency for the moment, I think this is why the LDS church tries to very carefully publish articles to give people the impression of equality, while not actually basing the pretty stories on any underlying, real substance. It is the appearance that matters, not the substance. The substance of the sexist status quo is still firmly entrenched.

I have to admit, however, I was still shocked to find out that their new gospel essay on women, under the heading "How do women participate in leadership of the worldwide Church?" is actually based on the work of three women serving on multiple committees, and four women, each serving on one committee. That's it. In a church that's says it has 17 million members, there are only three women who do almost everything women are allowed to do at the highest levels. That's token representation, not participation by LDS women. They spun it to create the best image possible.

[Moksha]

That criticism can be thrown at anyone that claims to speak for or speak to God.

Got milk?

Regards,
MG

Are you saying the Wizard just made it up all along, and that Dorothy was not beholden to his false promises?

[MG 2.0]

That criticism can be thrown at anyone that claims to speak for or speak to God.

Got milk?

Regards,
MG

Are you saying the Wizard just made it up all along, and that Dorothy was not beholden to his false promises?

I'm saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or in other words, don’t throw out the champagne with the cork.

God could be in there. You wouldn't want to miss Him.

The trick is figuring out if there is a there there. Right?

Regards,
MG