Rob Osborn

Why Feminism is Bad

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is like saying that since Mormons don't agree on everything, you can't dismiss the Church's beliefs because of what is said in General Conference.

If what you're describing as feminism is what most who carry the label of feminist believe, then where is that voice in the public square?  What organizations are out there that push for conservative values while promoting actual equality between men and women and encouraging REAL choice, not just toting the party line?

 

But feminism isn't as cohesive a group as the LDS church. They don't have a "General Conference" equivalent, they just have people and groups who say their opinions. But you're not "out" just because you don't agree with what prominent feminists believe. Feminism means different things to different people. But if you strive for equality, you're a feminist, whether you call yourself that or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

But if you strive for equality, you're a feminist, whether you call yourself that or not.

Do you see a problem with this, MBKnabe? It's a sort of inverse no-true-Scotsman claim. Consider the following claim:

"Every fair-minded person is a Ku Klux Klanner, whether you call yourself that or not."

Do you agree with this? If not, why should anyone else agree with your statement above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

That is a false comparison. The prophet doesn't get to the celestial kingdom faster than anyone else. He's just a man who has worked hard, been worthy, and been chosen to bring us God's word. 

It's not a false comparison any more than the reality that someone born with no arms and legs doesn't have it equal to someone born with legs. There may be good reasons for why there are inequalities. But to deny inequality when it is plain is not helpful. We do not all go through life with "equality" in anything. Not intelligence, not health, not temptations, not family circumstances. God has good reasons for how we have this great inequality in life, sure. But it isn't "equal". Some are born into grand circumstances and some into horrid. It's reality.

The fact is that women do not have the right to ride a certain train (priesthood and leadership in the church) through life. If one believes the church is true and God deems it right, then one accepts that this is well and good. But it is not equality. Claims that such'n'such are just as good and therefore it balances out are in the eye of the beholder. They do not define equality. You can say that being required to sit in the back of the bus is BETTER than the front because up front you have everyone walking past you to find their seat. But that's merely a perception. Everyone knows that better or worse, being forced to sit in the back of the bus was not equality.

You could say the person walking to California was better off because of all the exercise too and the one who had to ride the train was the oppressed. Doesn't much matter. It's still not equality.

40 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

That is a false comparison. The prophet doesn't get to the celestial kingdom faster than anyone else. He's just a man who has worked hard, been worthy, and been chosen to bring us God's word. 

Here's an example:

Studies show that women get interrupted and ignored more than men (see for example this article from the journal of anthropological and Anthropological linguistics It's behind a pay wall, so if you need further evidence, feel free to peruse this summary of the article, and news articles such as this one from Forbes Magazine and this one from the New York Times as well as this article about  female supreme court justices being interrupted.)

 I have seen this in my life at church. My husband and I teach a gospel principles. No matter how studied I am on a subject, when I teach, I am interrupted and talked over. It's not deliberate or malicious, but it is sexist and systematic. When my husband teaches, he is recognized as the authority on that lesson, and is able to direct the conversation, finish his thoughts, and answer questions. That's just one example. I have a ton more examples of how I'm treated differently than male counterparts. Sexism exists. That's not the question.

Systematic?

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
14 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

But feminism isn't as cohesive a group as the LDS church. They don't have a "General Conference" equivalent, they just have people and groups who say their opinions. But you're not "out" just because you don't agree with what prominent feminists believe. Feminism means different things to different people. But if you strive for equality, you're a feminist, whether you call yourself that or not. 

Perhaps not, but what is the movement?  Is it the individual with individual opinions and positions?  No.  It is the conglomerate of all opinions of those who claim to be participants.  And who controls that?  

Politicians, Academia, Hollywood, Media.

These are the equivalent of a General Conference.  That is why I asked who in the public eye actually voices your brand of feminism?  Can you think of anyone?

The only difference is that these are ever present always repeating their mantra whether you're aware of it or not.  At least with General Conference, we know what it is we're subscribing to.  You don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Do you see a problem with this, MBKnabe? It's a sort of inverse no-true-Scotsman claim. Consider the following claim:

"Every fair-minded person is a Ku Klux Klanner, whether you call yourself that or not."

Do you agree with this? If not, why should anyone else agree with your statement above?

But the KKK is a cohesive group with actual membership and initiations. Further, equality is the fundamental principle of feminism in the same way that racism is the fundamental principle of the KKK, so a more accurate statement would be "Every racist person is a Ku Klux Klanner..." even though, feminism is not an actual organization. Feminism is a political ideology; in the same way we call ourselves conservatives or liberals even if we don't agree with conservatives/liberals on every individual issue. There is no "official" conservatism. It's just a label used to clarify your viewpoint. The same is true of feminism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

Feminism is a political ideology; in the same way we call ourselves conservatives or liberals even if we don't agree with conservatives/liberals on every individual issue. There is no "official" conservatism. It's just a label used to clarify your viewpoint. The same is true of feminism.

Well said. Totally agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MBKnabe said:

Some women don't consider themselves feminist because they misunderstand what feminism means, but they still espouse many feminist ideas - specifically striving for equality. Those who want the priesthood are just shouting louder than the majority of Mormon feminists. And besides, feminism is not one thing. People are individuals! They have different thoughts about what feminism means. But one thing it definitely doesn't do is try to diminish the important roles of men. Don't feel threatened by women reasserting our rights. We don't want to take anything away from you.

Striving for "equality" as a feminist doesnt mean the same thing the proclamation says about being "equal partners". This "equality" from feminists is about changing gender roles, its about empowering women to be completely independent from man even to the point of not needing man (lesbianism movement). The church already teaches true equality, but its not the same equality as defined by modern day feminists. Feminists are a threat to society. Thats why I started this thread to make awares that equality doesnt mean changing the eternal law and principle of the patriarchal order. Feminists do see that as a threat to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to bow out of this conversation because I'm feeling attacked and defensive, as I'm sure many others are, and we can't have good, respectful discussions when people feel at war. Lets remember each other's worth as children of God, even if we disagree about political or philosophical questions. Feminism isn't a destructive force in society, like the original poster said. It's just a label for a political ideology that focuses on gender inequality, and how we can fix that. Please understand that many faithful Church Members are feminists, and don't lump us all in with extreme, militant feminists. Look for a MormonHub article about this from me in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

I have to bow out of this conversation because I'm feeling attacked and defensive, as I'm sure many others are, and we can't have good, respectful discussions when people feel at war. Lets remember each other's worth as children of God, even if we disagree about political or philosophical questions. Feminism isn't a destructive force in society, like the original poster said. It's just a label for a political ideology that focuses on gender inequality, and how we can fix that. Please understand that many faithful Church Members are feminists, and don't lump us all in with extreme, militant feminists. Look for a MormonHub article about this from me in the future. 

Well, the truth of it is, modern day feminism is a threat. Parents, husband and wife together, need to see and know that modern day feminism is not compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

Feminism is a political ideology; in the same way we call ourselves conservatives or liberals even if we don't agree with conservatives/liberals on every individual issue. There is no "official" conservatism. It's just a label used to clarify your viewpoint. The same is true of feminism.

This makes sense. On a personal level, I could accept this. On a larger societal level, I don't think this would fly. I think if you said you were a conservative, pro-religion, pro-family, pro-life, pro-male feminist, the large majority of other self-proclaimed feminists would reject your claim as one of them. I believe they would accuse you of co-opting "their" term and would state that you are no feminist if you believe those things. It is that "feminism" to which I object.

If you have a sane version of "feminism" that values men, children, and families, that has no objection to male and female roles, that recognizes the patriarchal order as good and Godly -- then sister, I'm right there with you. The kind of "feminism" that says simply that we are all valuable before God and in society is a "feminism" I could count myself as part of.

But as a semantic matter, I don't believe that is "feminism", any more than I believe it's "Ku Klux Klanism" or "Girl Scoutism" or "communism". So even though I respect and agree with your underlying feelings, I don't think that's "feminism", and I doubt most self-styled feminists would agree, either.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MBKnabe said:

I have to bow out of this conversation because I'm feeling attacked and defensive, as I'm sure many others are, and we can't have good, respectful discussions when people feel at war. Lets remember each other's worth as children of God, even if we disagree about political or philosophical questions. Feminism isn't a destructive force in society, like the original poster said. It's just a label for a political ideology that focuses on gender inequality, and how we can fix that. Please understand that many faithful Church Members are feminists, and don't lump us all in with extreme, militant feminists. Look for a MormonHub article about this from me in the future. 

Please don't feel attacked. Shh....people don't seem to want to accept it but... Mormonism is super feminist. Here is a wonderful quote of Elder L. Tom Perry which I think illustrates what we have been saying:

Quote

Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. As President Gordon B. Hinckley has taught:

In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals.”10 Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.11 Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng

 

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really want to get into this conversation much, but I thought I'd interject something interesting regarding an opinion of mine with LDS teachings of the priesthood., that many people, including many members, and especially woman who claim woman should hold the priesthood, do not understand.

Woman already hold the priesthood in the LDS church, and in fact, those who do, hold the HIGHEST order of the priesthood in the LDS church.

The Melchizedek priesthood is the higher priesthood.  Under it, as a branch of it, is the holiest priesthood available, and the only one upon which a man may obtain exaltation.  This is the Patriarchal priesthood.  It is not a different or third order of priesthood, but an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood.  It is ONLY granted to those couples who are sealed together for all eternity in the Temple.  It is seen as granted to the man, but it is actually granted to the COUPLE, aka, the man and the wife together, and as such, is only available to those who have been sealed together.

It is this priesthood that gives a father the actual authority to preside over the home.  So, one may ask, why is it that it is only the father that gives blessings and things of that order.

The answer, because the church is a church of order.  While it is a priesthood that is upon the couple, rather than just the father of the household, the father is the one who holds the keys, and in some of these, he cannot delegate them any more than a Bishop could delegate his keys of judgment in certain cases (though some Bishops may truly want to, and some may even act upon that, there are some keys which only the Bishop is authorized to use). 

As such, it is upon the Father, just like it is upon the Bishop, to preside and lead the home.  However, it is a responsibility in this particular priesthood that is also upon the Mother as well, and at times throughout LDS history, there have been multiple instances of mothers placing their hands on their children and either giving a mother's blessing, or calling upon their husbands priesthood to give a blessing IN HIS ABSENCE. (for clarification, before someone does something waaay out of the ordinary, these are normally blessings that are done simply with the mother laying her hands on the childs head and giving a blessing.  It is NOT a blessing of healing and comfort done with the anointment of oil upon the head...as that is a priesthood blessing done by the FATHER or those priesthood holders who have been given those rights under the commission of an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood).

In some ways, one would say the Father holds the priesthood and the mother ministers with it...if that can be organized in that way...

Quote

The patriarchal order is, in the words of Elder James E. Talmage, a condition where "woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood," where husband and wife minister, "seeing and understanding alike, and cooperating to the full in the government of their family kingdom" (Young Woman's Journal 25 [Oct. 1914]:602-603). A man cannot hold this priesthood without a wife, and a woman cannot share the blessings of this priesthood without a husband, sealed in the temple.

So, in essence, though one can see the woman would be one who holds or at the least, participates in this, it is the husband who has the rights of the priesthood (as he has the fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood as granted by right, and not just the appendage of the patriarchal priesthood for his family.  However, it is under the patriarchal priesthood where it is utilized with cooperation and understanding where the full rights of the father to preside and be the patriarch of the family reside.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Patriarchal_Order_of_the_Priesthood

Quote

Today dedicated husbands and wives enter this order in the temple in a covenant with God. The blessings of this priesthood is given only to husbands and wives together. Their covenants extend beyond this life (D&C 76:59, 60), beyond death (D&C 132:20-24), and into the resurrection, to eternal lives, the eternal giving and receiving of life.

Thus united, they work in love, faith, and harmony for the glorification of their family. If they are not united in obedient love, if they are not one, they are not of the Lord. Eventually, through this order, families will be linked in indissoluble bonds all the way back to the first parents, and all the way forward to the last child born into this world. This priesthood order will be both the means and the end of reconciliation, redemption, peace, joy, and eternal life. LYNN A. MCKINLAY

Could my opinion be wrong...absolutely.  However, I think this is an opinion that is often missed or not taken into account by many when they consider the family and a woman's rights to the priesthood or her place in the family at home.

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Woman already hold the priesthood in the LDS church, and in fact, those who do, hold the HIGHEST order of the priesthood in the LDS church.

Well this is just factually wrong. Of course one can twist the meaning of the words to make it seem right. How is that useful though? It's an appeasement argument with no real weight. "Holding" the priesthood on the earth is a matter of authority and rights. There are authority and rights given to men that are not given to women, so practically speaking, twisting the meaning of what it means to "hold" the priesthood, (or "have" the priesthood, or whatever word one uses) doesn't change the rights and authority given -- literally.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

"woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood,"

You see..."shares ...the blessings" is not the same meaning as "holds".

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A man cannot hold this priesthood without a wife, and a woman cannot share the blessings of this priesthood without a husband

 

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The blessings of this priesthood is given

All mankind, including women, are indeed blessed through the priesthood.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

consider the family and a woman's rights to the priesthood or her place in the family at home.

This, more accurately, should read "a woman's rights to the blessings of the priesthood".

 

Don't get me wrong...your point is a good one as far as understanding things, it just isn't factually accurate to take one meaning "women have access to and are blessed by the priesthood through marriage (and men don't have access to the highest order of the priesthood without women as well)" and change it to mean "women hold the priesthood".

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Melchizedek priesthood is the higher priesthood.  Under it, as a branch of it, is the holiest priesthood available, and the only one upon which a man may obtain exaltation.  This is the Patriarchal priesthood.  It is not a different or third order of priesthood, but an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood.

No, it is synonymous with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is ONLY granted to those couples who are sealed together for all eternity in the Temple.  It is seen as granted to the man, but it is actually granted to the COUPLE, aka, the man and the wife together, and as such, is only available to those who have been sealed together.

Again, this is incorrect. Women do not hold the Priesthood. Men hold the Priesthood, and only men -- hence the name "Patriarchal Priesthood".

You are confusing the Priesthood with an order of the Priesthood, called the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. That order is enter into only by a man and a woman. But it is not the Priesthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, it is synonymous with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I agree, but...I believe there are several sources that discuss the patriarchal priesthood as a separate thing as JohnsonJones describes it.

Not really worth debating IMO. But...

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

No, it is synonymous with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Again, this is incorrect. Women do not hold the Priesthood. Men hold the Priesthood, and only men -- hence the name "Patriarchal Priesthood".

You are confusing the Priesthood with an order of the Priesthood, called the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. That order is enter into only by a man and a woman. But it is not the Priesthood.

We will probably disagree, as there are multiple individuals, several apostles, that have talked about the patriarchal order and patriarchal priesthood as something that can ONLY BE HELD by couples...not individuals.  It is why it is ONLY given when one is sealed, as a Man cannot have it without a woman and vice versa.  It is also specified that it is it's OWN thing, separate, in and of itself...though as the Melchizedek Priesthood is the higher Priesthood it is part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but those who are not sealed have no part of the order nor ability granted to practice that priesthood.

In addition, it is NOT synonymous with the Melchizedek Priesthood.  It is under the umbrella of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but a different order of it.  An Elder who is single has no part or ability in regards to the Patriarchal Priesthood.  It is only granted within a relationship that has been sealed for all time and eternity. 

It is the one order which make men and woman needing to cooperate in the marriage, it is what is under the heavenly dictates where the Father holds the keys for his family in regards to that Priesthood with the authority (as a Bishop does for a ward) to receive revelation for it, preside over it, and even make judgements, and all other things in regards for the Patriarch of the Family to utilize over his family which is sealed to him (so it is far beyond just the children and grandchildren).  However, with it, a mother ALSO has the ability to make judgements, to receive revelation, and all other things under the presiding figure of the Father, and to be a couple. 

The REASON it is so, is because it is also part of one of the oldest commandments, which means they are ONE.  In this instance, they are ONE in the priesthood and understanding, and it can only be practiced and held by a couple that IS ONE, united in cooperation and spiritually.  If they are not ONE, they do not have access to this Priesthood, Man or Woman.

But it is my opinion, not doctrine.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2017 at 5:12 PM, MBKnabe said:

That is a false comparison. The prophet doesn't get to the celestial kingdom faster than anyone else. He's just a man who has worked hard, been worthy, and been chosen to bring us God's word. 

Here's an example:

Studies show that women get interrupted and ignored more than men (see for example this article from the journal of anthropological and Anthropological linguistics It's behind a pay wall, so if you need further evidence, feel free to peruse this summary of the article, and news articles such as this one from Forbes Magazine and this one from the New York Times as well as this article about  female supreme court justices being interrupted.)

 I have seen this in my life at church. My husband and I teach a gospel principles. No matter how studied I am on a subject, when I teach, I am interrupted and talked over. It's not deliberate or malicious, but it is sexist and systematic. When my husband teaches, he is recognized as the authority on that lesson, and is able to direct the conversation, finish his thoughts, and answer questions. That's just one example. I have a ton more examples of how I'm treated differently than male counterparts. Sexism exists. That's not the question.

The problem with "studies show" is that the studies only deal with numbers and then assign their own agenda to the Why.

Yes, women are interrupted more than men.  Women also interrupt women more then they interrupt men.  The modern feminist will tell you, that's because women are disrespected and interruption is a sign of dominance.  Bullhokey.

In the Philippines - we have 49 distinct dialects.  The dialects under the Bisaya umbrella is a very direct language.  This is the dialect I speak.  For example, there's no Bisaya word for Hi.  We just don't say Hi.  It's superfluous.  If we have nothing to say to somebody except Hi, then there's no point in talking.  Nod your head at him to acknowledge his presence.  If you have something to say then just say it.  The Hi is implied.  To the Tagalog speakers, it sounds very rude.  So when a Tagalog and a Bisaya are talking to each other - the Bisaya is constantly interrupting the Tagalog.  There is no disrespect given or no show of dominance made.  The Bisaya's brain works differently than a Tagalog's brain.

This is the EXACT SAME THING with Males and Females.  The Male brain is direct - they think through process.  The Female brain is not as direct - they think through empathy.   Women, therefore, tend to talk a lot more superfluously to take the time to "say Hi" (appeal to empathy) in conversation whereas the males just want to "Git R Done".  This difference is starkly displayed in the Tech Industry (where I work).  Men interrupt women a lot in the Tech Industry because that industry is nothing but Process.  Interruption at my work is not disrespect nor dominance.  All it says is that Male and Female THINK DIFFERENTLY.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  FORCING THEM TO THINK THE SAME WAY is A BAD THING.  This is when you start MESSING WITH THE STRENGTHS of the male gender to make them weak IN THE NAME OF FEMINISM.  This IS NOT FEMINIST.

If you want to foster greater understanding between the different communication styles of Male and Female, then instead of making Men look like bad guys, what you need is for both of them to focus on understanding the communication style of the other and pick the best style to accomplish the task at hand.  In the Tech Industry, the Male "Git R Done" communication style is more effective, so Females need to adjust.  In other fields such as Medicine and Education, the "Empathetic style" is more effective, so Males need to adjust.  This is FEMINISM - to foster understanding between the sexes while keeping their differing strengths intact.

And this is something that I really really wish feminists like @MBKnabe would start to realize.  Especially if you're trying to change an industry's culture (e.g. Church).

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The problem with "studies show" is that the studies only deal with numbers and then assign their own agenda to the Why.

Yes, women are interrupted more than men.  Women also interrupt women more then they interrupt men.  The modern feminist will tell you, that's because women are disrespected and interruption is a sign of dominance.  Bullhokey.

In the Philippines - we have 49 distinct dialects.  The dialects under the Bisaya umbrella is a very direct language.  This is the dialect I speak.  For example, there's no Bisaya word for Hi.  We just don't say Hi.  It's superfluous.  If we have nothing to say to somebody except Hi, then there's no point in talking.  Nod your head at him to acknowledge his presence.  If you have something to say then just say it.  The Hi is implied.  To the Tagalog speakers, it sounds very rude.  So when a Tagalog and a Bisaya are talking to each other - the Bisaya is constantly interrupting the Tagalog.  There is no disrespect given or no show of dominance made.  The Bisaya's brain works differently than a Tagalog's brain.

This is the EXACT SAME THING with Males and Females.  The Male brain is direct - they think through process.  The Female brain is not as direct - they think through empathy.   Women, therefore, tend to talk a lot more superfluously to take the time to "say Hi" (appeal to empathy) in conversation whereas the males just want to "Git R Done".  This difference is starkly displayed in the Tech Industry (where I work).  Men interrupt women a lot in the Tech Industry because that industry is nothing but Process.  Interruption at my work is not disrespect nor dominance.  All it says is that Male and Female THINK DIFFERENTLY.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  FORCING THEM TO THINK THE SAME WAY is A BAD THING.  This is when you start MESSING WITH THE STRENGTHS of the male gender to make them weak IN THE NAME OF FEMINISM.  This IS NOT FEMINIST.

If you want to foster greater understanding between the different communication styles of Male and Female, then instead of making Men look like bad guys, what you need is for both of them to focus on understanding the communication style of the other and pick the best style to accomplish the task at hand.  In the Tech Industry, the Male "Git R Done" communication style is more effective, so Females need to adjust.  In other fields such as Medicine and Education, the "Empathetic style" is more effective, so Males need to adjust.  This is FEMINISM - to foster understanding between the sexes while keeping their differing strengths intact.

And this is something that I really really wish feminists like @MBKnabe would start to realize.  Especially if you're trying to change an industry's culture (e.g. Church).

Are you suggesting that if women were in charge there would be more and longer meetings? Are there enough hours in the day?

Edited by Rob Osborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4642078/Clementine-Ford-fire-shocking-note-fan.html?ito=social-facebook_Australia

Again, I'd ask:  If feminism is so innocuous as promoting equality for all, where are the voices that say so?  We have example after example after example of people who say rhetoric like that indicated in the link above.  But where do we hear of any feminists against abortion that are simply asking for equality (which I fight for as a conservative, a libertarian, and constitutionalist) in the public eye?  How successful are such individuals at actually carrying their label of "feminist" among a hundred other self-labeled feminists who are strangers?

It is pretty obvious to me that these who simply want equal rights for women are not feminists.  They're simply humans who want human rights and constitutional rights for themselves.  I'm all for ANY human being wanting basic rights afforded to any human being.  Why do you need a label for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have time to respond and present ideas – hopefully I will be able to follow up.  First I am convinced most of humanity and even some LDS members do not understand scripture.  Many think that the sole purpose of scripture is to clarify doctrine.  Jesus reprimanded such thinking among the Pharisees when he said to them to search the scriptures with the idea that scriptures will bring them eternal life – but the scriptures testify of Christ.  In short – if one does not use scripture to become more “Christ like” then the scriptures are useless to them.  As much as Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees with interpretations of scripture he never at any time said – “No the scriptures do not say that.”  I am convinced that those that use this method in discussing scripture do not understand scripture nor do they understand Christ.

With this understanding, I will respond to this thread.  I believe that there are distinct and unique gender roles.  The primary and singularly most important role of males is to fulfill and complete the woman and likewise the primary and singularly most important role of a woman is to fulfill and complete the man.  Those that do not understand the importance of gender and gender roles in the divine purpose of the Great Plan of Salvation will struggle with this very simple understanding.  In eternity, man is not without the woman nor is the woman without the man. 

There is no calling greater for man than husband and father – likewise there is no calling greater for a woman than wife and mother.  In addition, there is no greater teaching or gospel principle or even believe in Christ; than that which prepares a man to fulfill a woman and likewise nothing a woman can learn or do that is greater than fulfilling a man.  The first great principle of this gender role is sacrifice – sacrifice in the manner and example of the sacrifice of Christ in atoning for humanity.  For this singular purpose genders, must be prepared by divine decree for the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.   Those that encourage any gender role as more important than this are inspired by Satan that does so to destroy both the man and the woman as well as their seed.

I am ashamed of much that has been said by both sides in this thread.  I apologize for the disrespect many holders of the priesthood have expressed towards women and ask the women that have been offended to forgive such men of their ignorance.   It is generally my belief and understanding that much of the complaining made by women is because men (including men ordained to the priesthood of G-d) have refused their primary role to fulfill them.  There are exceptions but generally we (myself included) have initiated most problems by refusing our primary gender role.

It is my observation that men cannot fulfil their callings within the priesthood without proper respect for women and without proper support from their wives.  I do not believe any man will retain their priesthood in eternity without this proper respect of women and support from wives.  Next to Christ – I am deeply indebted to my wife and mother.  I have spent much of my life tormenting them and like a prodigal son I have come (at least in part) to my senses.  If I have offended any woman on this forum I apologize – also to men but not so much.  But let us forget this equality stuff and become saints of G-d.  And fulfill our true gender roles.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have time to respond and present ideas – hopefully I will be able to follow up.  First I am convinced most of humanity and even some LDS members do not understand scripture.  Many think that the sole purpose of scripture is to clarify doctrine.  Jesus reprimanded such thinking among the Pharisees when he said to them to search the scriptures with the idea that scriptures will bring them eternal life – but the scriptures testify of Christ.  In short – if one does not use scripture to become more “Christ like” then the scriptures are useless to them.  As much as Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees with interpretations of scripture he never at any time said – “No the scriptures do not say that.”  I am convinced that those that use this method in discussing scripture do not understand scripture nor do they understand Christ.

With this understanding, I will respond to this thread.  I believe that there are distinct and unique gender roles.  The primary and singularly most important role of males is to fulfill and complete the woman and likewise the primary and singularly most important role of a woman is to fulfill and complete the man.  Those that do not understand the importance of gender and gender roles in the divine purpose of the Great Plan of Salvation will struggle with this very simple understanding.  In eternity, man is not without the woman nor is the woman without the man. 

There is no calling greater for man than husband and father – likewise there is no calling greater for a woman than wife and mother.  In addition, there is no greater teaching or gospel principle or even believe in Christ; than that which prepares a man to fulfill a woman and likewise nothing a woman can learn or do that is greater than fulfilling a man.  The first great principle of this gender role is sacrifice – sacrifice in the manner and example of the sacrifice of Christ in atoning for humanity.  For this singular purpose genders, must be prepared by divine decree for the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.   Those that encourage any gender role as more important than this are inspired by Satan that does so to destroy both the man and the woman as well as their seed.

I am ashamed of much that has been said by both sides in this thread.  I apologize for the disrespect many holders of the priesthood have expressed towards women and ask the women that have been offended to forgive such men of their ignorance.   It is generally my belief and understanding that much of the complaining made by women is because men (including men ordained to the priesthood of G-d) have refused their primary role to fulfill them.  There are exceptions but generally we (myself included) have initiated most problems by refusing our primary gender role.

It is my observation that men cannot fulfil their callings within the priesthood without proper respect for women and without proper support from their wives.  I do not believe any man will retain their priesthood in eternity without this proper respect of women and support from wives.  Next to Christ – I am deeply indebted to my wife and mother.  I have spent much of my life tormenting them and like a prodigal son I have come (at least in part) to my senses.  If I have offended any woman on this forum I apologize – also to men but not so much.  But let us forget this equality stuff and become saints of G-d.  And fulfill our true gender roles.

 

The Traveler

I try not to skate around the issues too much. The husbands primary role is to preside and provide spiritual things, blessings, etc, and also in temporal things to his family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I try not to skate around the issues too much. The husbands primary role is to preside and provide spiritual things, blessings, etc, and also in temporal things to his family.

 

Please define "preside".  Especially what it means when your opinion or view conflicts with your spouse.  Also how do you preside over someone else's agency - again - specifically your spouse's.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Please define "preside".  Especially what it means when your opinion or view conflicts with your spouse.  Also how do you preside over someone else's agency - again - specifically your spouse's.

For what it's worth, knowing you didn't ask me, but... the ability to preside in the gospel world and what it means and how it works is directly related to those who sustain you or do not because the gospel is one of agency.

Point being, understanding what presiding is is more important for those presided over than for the presiding. The presiding has D&C 121 as their guide.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this quote needs to be here again. It is clear as water:

Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. As President Gordon B. Hinckley has taught:

In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals.”10 Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.11 Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward. (Elder Tom L. Perry)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
17 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I think this quote needs to be here again. It is clear as water:

You say that as if anyone here disagrees with it.  I doubt that even rob or Johnson do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now