SJW in Church . . .why??

[yjacket]

Some thoughts after conference.  Does anyone every think as to what exactly is the point of SJW in the Church?

For example, I read about a father who has gender bended the scriptures, i.e. femanized all males in the scriptures and made males out of all the females in the scriptures and is reading them to young children.  Why? I really don't get it.  So women can have "strong" examples in the scriptures.  So torture, twist and reverse the scriptures just to make a modern day political point to young impressionable children? The scriptures have enough lessons in them to be learned by young children without the need to change them to fit our own social agenda.

Needless to say, the only boy in the family didn't like it.  I have an idea . . .let's take all the stories about Cinderella, princesses, etc. and reverse them too!

My goodness, the current society is just plain nuts.  We have a falling birth rate, the US is below repopulation rate (i.e. without immigration in 20-30 years the population will actually start declining) and the most important lessons we can teach to young impressionable minds is that the scriptures are wrong about gender? Right, like some amazonian woman teancum is going to heave the massive javelin and kill the Queen Ammorona.

My goodness, instead of teaching the values of family, hard work, persistence, grit, determination we are teaching children that women can do everything men can do. Why are we trying to teach young girls that they can be everything that a man can be?  It's patently false, men and women are different, each have their unique strengths and weaknesses and this is good. God made is so that man and woman can come together become one flesh, become perfected through each other and Christ form families and enjoy all the blessings God has.

This is just so incredibly nuts . . .  

[Backroads]

The disease can seep in anywhere... who's this fool man?

[Guest]

Seems to me that there are plenty of strong women in scriptures and church history to look to, without making Nephi Nephina. 

 

We also have plenty of modern examples of strong women. But I guess it's about what your definition of "strong" is. My great-grandma was strong when she came West as a single woman and started her own homestead. She was strong when she married and bore children years after that. I've been strong as a single woman, as a wife and mother, as a primary teacher and neighbor and friend and  YW leader. I think it takes a strength to stay tender in a hard world. I'm strong now as I help my husband support the family until he can get his career back on track. So really, what does that even mean? To me it's doing what it takes to be a good helpmeet (not doormat... look the word up, people) and mother. That's taken a lot of iterations, none of them being lesser than another. To the SJW's you speak of, it's what? Anything else? It's nonsense. 

 

[yjacket]

12 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Seems to me that there are plenty of strong women in scriptures and church history to look to, without making Nephi Nephina. 

 

We also have plenty of modern examples of strong women. But I guess it's about what your definition of "strong" is. My great-grandma was strong when she came West as a single woman and started her own homestead. She was strong when she married and bore children years after that. I've been strong as a single woman, as a wife and mother, as a primary teacher and neighbor and friend and  YW leader. I think it takes a strength to stay tender in a hard world. I'm strong now as I help my husband support the family until he can get his career back on track. So really, what does that even mean? To me it's doing what it takes to be a good helpmeet (not doormat... look the word up, people) and mother. That's taken a lot of iterations, none of them being lesser than another. To the SJW's you speak of, it's what? Anything else? It's nonsense. 

 

Amen Eowyn, love your comments!

[yjacket]

My personal opinion is that is it an attempt to completely overthrow culture; I have my own conspiratorial thoughts on the origins of it.

But that is why I loved Christoferson's talk.  He hit on the difference between the shame culture and guilt culture.  Shame culture is one where one must apologize for not holding whatever current moral views society holds (which depend on which way the wind is blowing today).  Guilt culture is one where there are moral absolutes of right and wrong and when one commits wrong one feels guilty about it.

How much of the SJW's attitudes and teaching is about shame vs guilt, shame for the social structure as it is (and a burning desire to change it) vs. teaching moral absolutes of right and wrong.

This world is sick-no fear here, but I pray one day soon (hopefully sooner rather than later) Christ will come and set it all right. 

[Guest MormonGator]

@yjacket-do you think that the SJW movement will ever gain traction in the church? Serious question. 

[Guest]

You didn't ask me, @MormonGator, but here's my opinion.

I read an article this week about a sort of revolution happening in the Church. A softening in that we're trying to be kinder, less harsh in judgment, etc. I think that's a very good thing, and has already begun to take hold.

I think as far as "justice" that changes fundamental beliefs, those people won't last in the church. Even if they manage to change little things, they'll find other things to be appalled about. Like the ones pushing for women to pray in Gen Con.... that was a reasonable request that did not challenge any doctrine, just culture. It happened and it's been good, and for most of us is barely a blip. But for the Whatever Kellys of the world, that's not enough. They want gender fluidity, they want matriarchal society, they want the Priesthood. Not gonna happen. They'll kick against pricks, annoy the rest of us, and finally limp away with bloody feet and then screech about their bleeding feet to anyone and everyone who will listen. 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

. They'll kick against pricks, annoy the rest of us, and finally limp away with bloody feet and then screech about their bleeding feet to anyone and everyone who will listen. 

So that wasn't you I saw protesting with her outside at General Conference this weekend? Noted. Must have been @Backroads

[yjacket]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@yjacket-do you think that the SJW movement will ever gain traction in the church? Serious question. 

That's a good question. I don't think it will, but I think it will.  I don't believe the Church is going to change it's stance on homosexual relationship, women and the priesthood, etc.  So in one sense, the Kate Kelly's of the world are going to have to go pound sound.

However, I think it will as a stumbling block.  Children in today's society are being raised to be SJW.  A quick example; my son is in 3rd grade.  He has a 3rd grade reading assignment about space exploration and then a written assignment afterwards about 1st's in space.  Every single first listed was a SJW topic, first woman in space, first black in space, first black woman in space, first indian-american in space, first LGBT in space (okay thankfully they didn't go that far, but you get my point). I'm an engineer, my son loves engineering stuff . . .why the shooting darn heck (avoiding the profanity filter :-) )) are they teaching this crud instead of, first rocket into space, first obit, first space walk, first satellite, etc.

From a very small age, our children (it has gotten especially bad with Common Core) are being pumped and primed to be SJW through identity politics.  No matter how much you teach your children at home, when they go to indoctrination camps for 8 hours a day they will pick up some of this stuff. Today's adults don't realize it b/c most people don't quite fully understand at how bad public schools have become at leftist, social indoctrination-but over the last 10 years . . .it's gotten bad.  As a consequence of it, we are seeing the rise of SJW phenomena in the rising generation.

Now what happens when these kids who have been indoctrinated get out on their own . . .which indoctrination is going to win?  That of their parents, or schools?  What happens when the indoctrination of schools, peers, etc. win out over religion and parents?  Why is the Church having a much larger problem with retaining today's youth (once they leave the nest) than previous generations?  One of the reasons given for lowering the mission age was specifically to address this (i.e. provide less gap time between high school and mission-and it has worked more youth are going on missions).

What happens when the SJW finds out that their worldview is not the Church's worldview?  They either try to change it (good luck with that!) or they leave.

And that is the concern. So no, I don't believe it will gain traction with believing members.  But I do believe it will make it more difficult for individuals to maintain believing member status-especially for the rising generation and in that sense it will gain traction-for those that leave.

[Backroads]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So that wasn't you I saw protesting with her outside at General Conference this weekend? Noted. Must have been @Backroads

Just because I have been known to wear pants to church, you make assumptions.

Fine. It was me. 

Spies everywhere.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Just because I have been known to wear pants to church, you make assumptions.

Fine. It was me. 

Spies everywhere.

Couldn't have been easy to find those purple slacks in this season. That's totally a fall color. 

[Backroads]

5 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Couldn't have been easy to find those purple slacks in this season. That's totally a fall color. 

I look good in purple.

[yjacket]

14 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I read an article this week about a sort of revolution happening in the Church. A softening in that we're trying to be kinder, less harsh in judgment, etc. I think that's a very good thing, and has already begun to take hold.

Me personally, I like a little saltiness.  I love the "Lions of the Lord".

The scriptures are full of very stern prophets that as Christopherson said "Repent!".  But I get that maybe today is not the day for those prophets. Every age calls for a different type of prophet.  I think it really depends on the response of the people.  Some generations and ages need a firmer hand, others a softer hand.  

I doubt towards the end of the BoM a softer, gentler prophet would have done any good.  At least with the firm, (maybe even harsh) prophets, there was absolutely no doubt.  Abinadi certainly wasn't soft!  But of course, maybe I've always had an affinity for them simply b/c my first testimony of the BoM came from the absolute boldness that Abinadi testified.  Man, I'll never forget how I felt age 15-16 reading about Abinadi . . .I could feel the power of God through his words-awesome, just awesome.

But, I've also noticed that in general God reserves those prophets almost as a "last warning" type, as in-you didn't hear me when I sent my servants and they spoke in a pleasing manner, hear them now or be destroyed!

Just like my kids . . .one of them needs the firmer hand (here me now!!!) and the others just word of warning.

 

[Guest]

I have lost friends, former missionary companions, to SJW.  

Have you ever attempted to talk with someone under the influence of SJW thinking who is on their way out of the Church?  You can't have a rational conversation with them.  Instead of God, they have found John Dehlin, and naturally anything any church critic says must now be absolute truth for these people.

(Some quotes from early church leaders suggests this phenomenon is from losing the Spirit.)

Worst of all, most of these people on the way out due to SJW are not going to join another religion that takes God seriously (e.g., the Southern Baptists, Islam, etc.)  No, many of these SJWs I have observed slip straight into agnosticism or even atheism... what a waste.

Edited April 3, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

I think as far as "justice" that changes fundamental beliefs, those people won't last in the church. Even if they manage to change little things, they'll find other things to be appalled about. Like the ones pushing for women to pray in Gen Con.... that was a reasonable request that did not challenge any doctrine, just culture. It happened and it's been good, and for most of us is barely a blip.

I agree with you, but I will take it even further. Women praying in General Conference has been...neutral. Neither bad nor particularly good. Just people praying at General Conference. Are we better off as a people or as the kingdom of God that a prayer was offered by someone with a vagina and not a penis? The SJWs assure us that it makes all the difference. I don't think it does. Previously, the "honor" of praying at General Conference was assigned to members of the Seventy, with an occasional stake president or patriarch thrown in. In other words, higher-up Church leaders. Not you. Not me. And certainly not someone being "honored", because that is the antithesis of prayer.

Years ago -- apparently in my childhood, or so I'm told -- only Melchizedek Priesthood holders were supposed to pray at sacrament meetings. I don't remember this, but that is likely because I wasn't paying attention. This policy changed in or around 1976. I do not feel that we as a Church have become any worse off for having our women praying in sacrament meeting. Women are and always have been among the most dedicated and loyal of Saints, since the beginning of the Restoration.

But maybe that's the point. Men need to feel needed. Not really sure I want to go here, but I guess I will. I am NOT one of those who worship women by denigrating men. I do not believe that women are naturally "more righteous" or even "more spiritual" than  men. I have known plenty of Godly men whom I aspire to be like, and scads of unadmirable women. That said, I do think that men's personalities are more attracted to feeling, not necessarily powerful, but relevant. I think men perform better when they feel needed and desired, even more than feeling loved. So when men were offering all the prayers in sacrament meeting, it gave them that much more of a chance to get involved, to fill a needed duty (even a small one) in the Church. In opening public prayer in sacrament meetings to women, did the Church pay a price in handicapping opportunities for the men -- perhaps opportunities that the women simply did not need as much?

(In the same vein, there is nothing about distributing or even preparing the sacrament that requires Priesthood holders to fulfill it; if that were the case, women, children, and other non-Priesthood holders would be prohibited from passing the sacrament tray down the row. Rather, those duties have been assigned to our Aaronic Priesthood young men so that they have the opportunity to serve and feel useful. Now the KKs of the Church will argue about how much the young women need such opportunities, too. But I disagree. Sure, women need to serve, but not in every way that men serve. Is the Church better off for having its Aaronic Priesthood young men take care of preparing and distributing the sacrament? I think we are very much better off. I think our young men are greatly blessed by performing this duty, and as a result we all are greatly blessed.)

Are we better off for having women pray during sacrament meetings? In some ways, perhaps. It's always nice to hear a humble, committed, righteous servant of God act as voice for the congregation, and plenty of women fill that bill. But suppose having men doing all of the praying in sacrament meeting boosted male participation by, oh, let's just say, 50%. Would we then want women praying in sacrament meeting, or only men?

Are you kidding? if that were the case, most Latter-day Saints of either sex would quickly say, "Have the men do all the praying!"

Of course, the 50% number is absurdly large, and no one believes that's the case. But I used a large number to make a point. What if it were "only" 10%? I daresay the reaction would be pretty much the same, at least among Saints who care more about actual people than about SJW headlines. What if it were, say, 2%? 0.5%? 0.01%? At what point does the benefit to the men for being able to do this service become negligible? The factor not being considered here is how much good the women receive by performing this service; since women are just as valuable to God as men, this would have to be considered. So obviously, I'm not arguing that only men should pray in sacrament meeting. What I'm saying is that it's not nearly as obvious a question as some would make it out to be. The question of "fairness" is not easily answered, and is not the only topic of interest in the matter.

So I'm happy to follow the policies as decided by those whose duty it is to set those policies. I'm tickled pink to have women pray in sacrament meetings. I have absolutely no objections to women praying at General Conference. But I don't see such things as progress of any sort -- nor regression. They appear to me to be an almost meaningless change in policy, done in part (I suspect) to placate the weak in faith who might be misled by the rantings of KK types. Why make subtle distinctions that could raise hackles? There is no known doctrine prohibiting the practice, and it may avoid giving offense, so why not?

I have perhaps never agreed more strongly with @yjacket than I do about the idea that, when we continually whine about or refuse to follow God's counsel and commandments, he withdraws those commandments, and then we don't receive the blessings of those commandments. I believe I see examples, both small and great, of this phenomenon throughout Church history. If we do as some agitate for and quit following God's commandments, he will eventually withdraw those blessings from us. We have the assurance that the kingdom of God will never fall again into utter apostasy, but we have no guarantee that large numbers will not fall away or be drawn into foolishness and corruption. Quite the opposite.

I don't know the answer. Excommunicate everyone who doesn't toe the line? Great. We'll have a million members left throughout the world, the majority of whom will not be Priesthood holders. Good luck running a worldwide Church with such a lack. And many will be cut off who otherwise would have repented of their foolishness and come unto Christ. I was (and am) probably one of those myself, a recalcitrant sinner slowly, painfully inching his way toward the light. If I draw the line, do I draw it just barely behind where I think I am? If so, then my condemnation is just when I find out I've overestimated my own position.

I have little patience for SJWs. But that is probably more an indictment of myself than of them. Wish I really knew the answer.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Vort

[Ironhold]

If you ask me, anyone who legitimately believes in "privilege" or "intersectionality" needs to spend some time volunteering at a hospital, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, or the like so that they can see how the world really operates. 

These little blankety-blanks would probably go fetal at the mere description of what I have to do some days, let alone the prospect of having to do it for themselves. 

[Guest]

I don't know the answers, either. I know that praying is not a Priesthood responsibility or assignment, and women also need to feel needed for something other than providing the funeral potatoes. I don't mean that in a feminist way at all, I just know that as orthodox as I am, I have struggled at times with what my place in the church is. I just think no one ever thought about putting women on the program (including me), and it doesn't hurt anything, and might make more of us feel more useful/relevant, so maybe it is better.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

@yjacket-do you think that the SJW movement will ever gain traction in the church? Serious question. 

As long as there are members who live of the world as well as in the world, and who fail to mature beyond junior high peer pressure and conformist mindset and critical thinking skills, and/or who have intense need to be noticed and thought "virtuous" (even if pretend), then we will have SJW's in the church. 

But, since many former members who are anti's tend to suffer the same symptoms, it is likely that they will eventually transition out of the Church to their newfound faith in socialism and/or the Church of What's Wrong with the Mormons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

31 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I don't know the answers, either. I know that praying is not a Priesthood responsibility or assignment, and women also need to feel needed for something other than providing the funeral potatoes. I don't mean that in a feminist way at all, I just know that as orthodox as I am, I have struggled at times with what my place in the church is. I just think no one ever thought about putting women on the program (including me), and it doesn't hurt anything, and might make more of us feel more useful/relevant, so maybe it is better.

I wonder if some people (not necessarily you) may confuse "visibility" with "usefulness" or "relevance"?

Which leads to the question of to whom they may need to be useful or relevant or visible?

From what I understand of Christ, his disciples are no more useful or relevant to him than in cases where the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing--i.e. when "alms" or service are done in secret.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 3, 2017 by wenglund

[Guest]

Perhaps.

Even President Hinckley said that one thing members need is a place to serve. I think for some, it's not about visibility, but really about wanting to feel needed. Vort talked about men maybe not coming to church because they don't feel as needed. Why would that be different for women? Or anyone? I know there have been times that I wasn't feeling my strongest, and what got me to church was knowing that I had something I was asked to do, and needed to show up and do it. Not the best motivation for getting there, but we're all in different spiritual places at different times, aren't we?

[wenglund]

Again, I wonder if some people need a "visible" place to serve since there are seemingly endless non-visible places , regardless whether one is a man or a woman. 

And, the nice thing about the non-visible places is that the service can often be done as one has the time, and without much preparation.

For one, the field has been white and ready for harvest for nearly 200 years. For another, the opportunities are seemingly endless to engage in pure religion (Jm. 1:27). And, most important, is the home. (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

What really toasts my biscuits about SJW, and Ordain Women in specific, is that, from my view, it is not about the rights of women at all.  It is all about challenging authority and bullying the First Presidency.

I am an attorney.  I know sexual harassment and discrimination when I see it.  Whining about women not getting the priesthood is extremely low on grievances against women in the world. Yes, I said it.  The whole movement is STUPID.    Yet, Ordain Women has convinced a huge number of people that they are being discriminated against because women do not get ordained to the priesthood, when, in fact, they have not been discriminated against at all.  It has successfully created a huge rift and controversy where none existed.  On top of that, Ordain Women has repeatedly used media tactics to try and bully the First Presidency into changing the policy because Ordain Women is not happy with God not granting women the priesthood.  Such actions are the exact opposite of having faith.  What is worse, people have left the Church over this stuff.  Ordain Women has cheated people out of exaltation.

I think the Church was one hundred percent in the right to excommunicate Kate Kelley and John Dehlin.

Edited April 3, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

However, I think it will as a stumbling block.  Children in today's society are being raised to be SJW.  A quick example; my son is in 3rd grade.  He has a 3rd grade reading assignment about space exploration and then a written assignment afterwards about 1st's in space.  Every single first listed was a SJW topic, first woman in space, first black in space, first black woman in space, first indian-american in space, first LGBT in space (okay thankfully they didn't go that far, but you get my point). I'm an engineer, my son loves engineering stuff . . .why the shooting darn heck (avoiding the profanity filter :-) )) are they teaching this crud instead of, first rocket into space, first obit, first space walk, first satellite, etc.

 

I'm not sure about this.  My kids have the same experience as yours (although they're older - 8th and 10th grade) but they've had that same kind of education all throughout their lives.  BUT - I have noticed that more and more kids in their peer group see the SJW "brainwashing" as "the Man" and - being the teen-agers that they are - they are "taking it to the Man" by taking their schooling and everything else the Millennial generation is feeding them and shooting daggers at it in the same way we used to take our education as Another Brick in the Wall back in our day.  It does seem like my kids' generation is leaning sharply conservative so much so that most of my discussions with them at home is balancing them out of extreme right views.

[yjacket]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure about this.  My kids have the same experience as yours (although they're older - 8th and 10th grade) but they've had that same kind of education all throughout their lives.  BUT - I have noticed that more and more kids in their peer group see the SJW "brainwashing" as "the Man" and - being the teen-agers that they are - they are "taking it to the Man" by taking their schooling and everything else the Millennial generation is feeding them and shooting daggers at it in the same way we used to take our education as Another Brick in the Wall back in our day.  It does seem like my kids' generation is leaning sharply conservative so much so that most of my discussions with them at home is balancing them out of extreme right views.

This very well could be; you can get a backlash generation. I do have to remind myself that my kids are not in the Millennial generation, they are post-millenial-whatever that is.  The 4 turnings of generations is an interesting philosophy.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

As long as there are members who live of the world as well as in the world, and who fail to mature beyond junior high peer pressure and conformist mindset and critical thinking skills,

I know we like to think that anyone who dares disagree with us is a fool, conformist, juvenile or whatever, but in reality that's not the case. I find SJWs obnoxious too, but they could just as easily say the same thing about religious people. Would I agree with them? Of course not, but when we try to dismiss them with names like that it lowers us to their level. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by MormonGator