Xavier
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, anatess2 said:

Sure.

I say, if you're abused and you go around claiming you can't do X because you're a victim of abuse, you are using your abuse as an excuse to fail. 

You sound like a guy who is familiar with Candace Owens - Victor versus Victim mentality.  

Oh, I am not saying men are going around claiming to be victims. I think there are a lot of victims that are remaining silent and just trying to survive. I have actually never heard of Candace Owens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I say, if you're abused and you go around claiming you can't do X because you're a victim of abuse, you are using your abuse as an excuse to fail. 

Exactly, though such an excuse is a manifestation of weakness.

Regardless who is to blame for the weakness, the scriptures have the cure:

"....arise from the dust, my sons, and be amen," (2 Nephi 1:21}

I suspect that the same counsel applies, gender neutrally, to daughters. ;)

Thanks, Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Nope.  He's making excuses for weak men.

Not so. An explanation is not an excuse. Though I do think there are weak men who have been trained up since childhood to be weak and pathetic, and I'm not at all sure they will be held responsible before God for their state. But my remark was not to excuse them, merely to point out that the cancer of feminism targets men and destroys both men and women by undermining the sacred.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not so. An explanation is not an excuse. Though I do think there are weak men who have been trained up since childhood to be weak and pathetic, and I'm not at all sure they will be held responsible before God for their state. But my remark was not to excuse them, merely to point out that the cancer of feminism targets men and destroys both men and women by targeting the sacred.

Well, you can't jump from a descriptor of societal conditions (group) to individual consideration and then back to societal conditions and keep flowing.  They are 2 different things.

This is the question you posted:

2 hours ago, Vort said:

True, but to a great extent that begs the question. Why are the husbands weak? Just bad, useless men? Or does it maybe have something to do with a feminist society that seeks to break men down from the time they're children? Boys need to be trained up to be men, and feminism is explicitly designed to turn out weak, useless men.

This question was posted through Emmanuel's changing of the discussion from a discussion of a group (feminism, gender roles, etc.) to women taking on patriarchal duties.  I responded by saying those women take the duties due to weak men - which is supposed to point out that he is changing the discussion from the group to the individual - that means, the generalizations can't apply as is evidenced by shift of moral positioning.

So then you replied exacerbating the inconsistencies - trying to apply a group condition (feminist society that breaks men down) to the individual discussion of weak men - and begged the question.

The simple answer to that is - using group identities as a reason for individual weakness is plain and simply - using your group identity to excuse your weakness.  And that's how phrases like "muh patriarchy" come to life.  It's also applicable to "muh feminists".

Basically, it's not a good idea to beg the question of individual application from a group generalized discussion.  It's so much less confusing to keep them separate.

 

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Just like how I like to think that the word Christian comes from the ideology that without Christ you're left with ian

So what I'm getting from this is that if a guy named Christian converts from Christianity to something else, he needs to change his name to Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SilentOne said:

So what I'm getting from this is that if a guy named Christian converts from Christianity to something else, he needs to change his name to Ian.

He left Christianity you say?  Then he needs to change his name to Ity.  I tried, yo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad your brought it up. I just listened to one of the apostle  talk about Satan. He is looking for MEN, SOLDIERS, PRIESTHOOD people to spread and speak the gospel

of Jesus Christ. I would imagine that women are home with children. I find it very 1950's. When brought up to a senior women who I respect as a Mormon, I asked her does she feel like she has free agency? She was rattled and defensive. Of course I do!! Life like everything is all in the perception.  Compared to churchs where women are ordained ministers and have much to add, its not equil, it obviously never was meant to be. Doesn't the bible say man and women should be equally yolked? What does that mean?

I think its humiliting that women are supposed to discuss with men who have a calling often many years their junior very personal things. Some of the comments are ludicris. 

Does it bother me, yes, will it change anything in the church? Never, men hold the authority and women have a role, its just never spoken of. Really its to have children, there are not many women who do not have children. Its the church culture, I learned there is no sense in even mentioning these things the chuch is kind of a social bubble they just don't see it or don't care. It makes me feel invisible but its not about me, its about authority. Oh wait it was about God and Jesus Christ. Hmmm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

I am glad your brought it up. I just listened to one of the apostle  talk about Satan. He is looking for MEN, SOLDIERS, PRIESTHOOD people to spread and speak the gospel

of Jesus Christ. I would imagine that women are home with children. I find it very 1950's. When brought up to a senior women who I respect as a Mormon, I asked her does she feel like she has free agency? She was rattled and defensive. Of course I do!! Life like everything is all in the perception.  Compared to churchs where women are ordained ministers and have much to add, its not equil, it obviously never was meant to be. Doesn't the bible say man and women should be equally yolked? What does that mean?

I think its humiliting that women are supposed to discuss with men who have a calling often many years their junior very personal things. Some of the comments are ludicris. 

Does it bother me, yes, will it change anything in the church? Never, men hold the authority and women have a role, its just never spoken of. Really its to have children, there are not many women who do not have children. Its the church culture, I learned there is no sense in even mentioning these things the chuch is kind of a social bubble they just don't see it or don't care. It makes me feel invisible but its not about me, its about authority. Oh wait it was about God and Jesus Christ. Hmmm. 

Who were the apostles of Jesus? Were they all male? Why do you suppose they were all male?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I am a convert new to all this, because they were the Quarum of the 12? Not even sure I am saying that correctly. They hold the higest power in "the church" I call it The Supreme Court. Kind of looks like that doesn't it? It was a talk on pettyness, one said, "get over it" well if you can't talk, what you don't talk about will be repeated only in secret. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh in answer to your question because thats Jewish tradition. Men on one side of temple women on the other. In reformed Judaism there are not women Rabbi's that would have been a no no years back. Like priests not being able to marry, each have their own set of rules. Does it have to make sense, you are asking the wrong person. I could never be in the military structure and orders are hard for me. 

When you had parents who were inflexable and brick walls as far as discipline thats not discipline its control There is a difference. 

Edited by inquisitive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@inquisitive, you're right men and women are equally yoked but they have different responsibilities.

You mentioned childbirth.  This is an integral part to womanhood that is the equivalent to Priesthood Authority.   This will only make sense if you look at a Person as he goes through the entire cycle of the Plan of Salvation - from pre-mortal existence to the celestial kingdom.

Look at this as a cycle - God --> pre-mortal life --> mortal life --> post-mortal life --> back to God. 

That's our complete journey in the Plan of Salvation - the power that is given to people from God to fulfill this plan is called Priesthood Power.  This power is not limited to men.  It is tasked to ALL - men and women together.

So, look at that cycle... Priesthood power is exercised through Priesthood authority.  The authority to bring pre-mortal spirits through the veil to mortal life is carried by women.  They are not ordained in mortality to do so, rather their authority is embedded in their biology.  Therefore, it is the woman that makes that final decision to bring a pre-mortal spirit to life in mortal existence.  But she can't do it without the help of man.

The authority to bring spirits from mortal life through the veil of death to post-mortal life is carried by men.  They perform the ordinances of salvation through their Priesthood authority.  But, just like woman can't bring spirits to mortality without the help of man, man can't bring mortal spirits to post-mortal life back to God without the help of woman.

With this responsibility of bringing spirits from God through mortal life and back to God, men and women have their duties and obligations, equally yoked.  A woman wanting to usurp man's responsibilities robs man of their yoke.  A woman who makes light of her duty to bring pre-mortal spirits to mortality is not understanding the importance of that yoke in the Salvation of spirits.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

Hey I am a convert new to all this, because they were the Quarum of the 12? Not even sure I am saying that correctly. They hold the higest power in "the church" I call it The Supreme Court. Kind of looks like that doesn't it?

As a new convert, you have a whole new language to learn. More importantly, you have a whole new viewpoint to adopt and understand.

Here's the first lesson on your primer, Mormon Viewpoints 101:

Don't think of things in the Church in terms of "power". That is a worldly and even Satanic way of sizing up a situation. Satan craves power, seeks after it, and makes everything about its acquisition. God does not worry about power, because he understands that the basis of righteous government is not power. It is love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Well, you can't jump from a descriptor of societal conditions (group) to individual consideration and then back to societal conditions and keep flowing.  They are 2 different things.

Your comment was, "Many wives are taking the traditional patriarchal role because of weak husbands." Well, the destruction of the "traditional patriarchal role" was exactly one of the proclaimed aims of the feminist movement. Feminists set out to accomplish this by tearing down, not just "male-dominated power structures", but men themselves, starting from boyhood. So I think it's completely relevant that when one moans about the castrated, irresponsible men of today's generation, one also acknowledges that that was the whole plan all along.

As the Biblical proverb says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." I'd say that applies even when you train up a child in the way he shouldn't go.

22 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The simple answer to that is - using group identities as a reason for individual weakness is plain and simply - using your group identity to excuse your weakness.

But, anatess, this simply is not so. No one (certainly not I) was using "group identity" to excuse our own individual weakness. We were simply pointing out what ought to be freely acknowledged -- that when you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

I am not sure what you mean by "begging the question". I can't see that I have done any such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Your comment was, "Many wives are taking the traditional patriarchal role because of weak husbands."

I explained this comment above.  It was a tongue-in-cheek response to the switch Emmanuel made from the group discussion to an individual application.  It wasn't meant to start a new discussion.  Your reply continued Emmanuel's switch to individual discussion so I dismissed your question-begging and tried bringing it back to the group discussion.  Emmanuel then continued your question-begging direction so I brought it back to the group discussion - which simply is, when you're talking about group discussions and you use individual results to exempt from the group picture, it's making justifications for the group characteristic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I am not sure what you mean by "begging the question". I can't see that I have done any such thing.

You wrote the post starting with the phrase "this begs the question".  So I referred to that question you begged as question-begging, begged-the-question, and any combination thereof so you know which sentence/paragraph/thought I'm referring to.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You wrote the post starting with the phrase "this begs the question".  So I referred to that question you begged as question-begging, begged-the-question, and any combination thereof so you know which sentence/paragraph/thought I'm referring to.

Which question did I beg? (= give a circular response to)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, inquisitive said:

Oh in answer to your question because thats Jewish tradition. Men on one side of temple women on the other. In reformed Judaism there are not women Rabbi's that would have been a no no years back. Like priests not being able to marry, each have their own set of rules. Does it have to make sense, you are asking the wrong person. I could never be in the military structure and orders are hard for me. 

When you had parents who were inflexable and brick walls as far as discipline thats not discipline its control There is a difference. 

So, why does God continue to call only male prophets and apostles in our present day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which question did I beg? (= give a circular response to)

I did not say you gave a circular response to anything.  This is the thought that I called "question begging" or whatever label I called that post.  When I refer to that post, I call it the question begging or whatever... not that YOU are begging the question.  Do you understand?  Yes, it's probably better if I assign a variable to it and call it X then refer to it as X or f(X) from here on out.  But that would only work on your brain.

On 8/6/2018 at 10:57 AM, Vort said:

True, but to a great extent that begs the question. Why are the husbands weak? Just bad, useless men? Or does it maybe have something to do with a feminist society that seeks to break men down from the time they're children? Boys need to be trained up to be men, and feminism is explicitly designed to turn out weak, useless men.

Anyway, this whole thing X - is mixing Emmanuel's individual trait of "patriarchal wives" (related to weak husbands) to the group trait of "feminist society doing Y".  If we are to take "weak husbands" as a group MALE trait that is a direct result of the group FEMALE trait of 3rd Wave Feminism... it would be an Excuse.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I did not say you gave a circular response to anything.  This is the thought that I called "question begging" or whatever label I called that post.  When I refer to that post, I call it the question begging or whatever... not that YOU are begging the question.  Do you understand?  Yes, it's probably better if I assign a variable to it and call it X then refer to it as X or f(X) from here on out.  But that would only work on your brain.

At the risk of pedantry (heaven forfend!), the conversation flow went like this, at least in my mind:

  • anatess mentions women being forced to "tak[e] the traditional patriarchal role because of weak husbands."
  • Vort infers an implicit question in this statement -- namely, "Why are husbands/fathers/men so weak that their wives must 'take the traditional patriarchal role'?" -- and points out that the answer provided simply begged this underlying question, which deserved more attention. ("Begging the question" means answering a question by providing an explanation that assumes the question to be true -- in effect, lifting oneself by one's own bootstraps.)
  • Vort then provides a partial answer to this unspoken, seemingly implicit (at least in Vort's mind) question by describing how feminist thought held as one of its primary goals the destruction of men.
  • anatess accuses Vort of (1) excusing bad male behavior and (2) begging the question.
  • Vort denies both charges, pointing out that (1) merely explaining some of the roots of bad behavior is not the same as excusing said bad behavior, and (2) wondering what question he's begging.
  • anatess responds by saying that she didn't say Vort gave a circular response, but that he begged the question.
  • Vort's head explodes.

I suspect that at least one root to this miscommunication lies before the first bullet point. You were responding to some point by bringing up an example of traditional-patriarchal-role-bearing women being forced into such actions by weak men, without really being much interested in that topic per se except as an example of whatever you were trying to demonstrate. Instead of responding to your underlying point, I responded to your example, and here we are. Maybe.

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Anyway, this whole thing X - is mixing Emmanuel's individual trait of "patriarchal wives" (related to weak husbands) to the group trait of "feminist society doing Y".  If we are to take "weak husbands" as a group MALE trait that is a direct result of the group FEMALE trait of 3rd Wave Feminism... it would be an Excuse.

No, it would be an Explanation. An Excuse would be something that seeks to excuse someone from bad actions, while an Explanation seeks merely to explain why some particular sequence of events occurred. We might Explain the rise of the Third Reich in socioeconomic terms without seeking to Excuse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

At the risk of pedantry (heaven forfend!), the conversation flow went like this, at least in my mind:

  • anatess mentions women being forced to "tak[e] the traditional patriarchal role because of weak husbands."

There's the issue.

That's not the start of the conversation flow.  That's a response to Emmanuel's taking a group trait of 3rd Wave Feminists to apply to individual trait of patriarchal wives.  That's where group identity politics fail all the time - mixing group and individual stuff like Anne Hathaway applying a white man beating up a black woman as a product of white privilege.  That response I made to Emmanuel was intended as a.... (what do you call a rhetorical question that is not a question?)... smack down of this mix-up.

But, obviously, I failed as instead of bringing the convo back to group trait it all got mixed up even more.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would point out to her the examples and mercies that Christ shows women in the gospel. 

I would point out the commandments that Paul gives to husbands and young men on how they are to treat women. 

The above is important to point out because it explains why during the 1st century AD that women were the majority of converts in the early Christian Church. In Christianity they found a belief system that actually treated them as a beloved child of God who was to be honored and valued.  When one contrasts Christianity with the pagan faiths of the time, faiths that promoted the infanticide of baby girls, the selling of young women into temple prostitution, etc. there really isn’t any comparison  

If that isn’t sufficient then move along as you are dealing with someone who probably more interested in using scripture to back up their political view than she is in finding Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak about Mormon men, I never dated one. I did go on a dating site, and found them very rigid compared to men that are not religious. Was that the few old-er men on the 

dating site, we are all old and bitter :)  who knows. They were very different. The culture is different, seemed much thinner skinned and easy to snap to judgement. Is that all religious men? I doubt it maybe its part of being untra conserative. 

The young men i see today seem like excellent fathers, they are very hands on and are good providers. I am in a big city and its not the average. Personally I think its ridiculous that men have the last word. Many women can't have children, other women wear their pregnancies as a badge of honor. All they talk about is their babies and being pregnant. A bit boring but its their family they have a right. I can't say I wouldn't be proud of my family I am sure i would be. Once, twice but when you start with huge families its a bit much. 

Sometimes I think life would be easier if women stayed home and were homemakers and didn't have to work. I honestly don't know how women work and have chidren, I give them a lot of credit its exhausting. 

What was the question, men and womens roles? They are all mixed up today, in the church it makes me feel invisible but thats just me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, inquisitive said:

What was the question, men and womens roles? They are all mixed up today, in the church it makes me feel invisible but thats just me. 

I have felt somewhat invisible across  various walks of life and throughout most of my life.. I suppose that is to be expected for those, like myself, who took the road less traveled and who are more than a bit quirky.

It is also in some ways the result of loosing oneself, particularly in the service of others--which, blessedly, tends to make the sense of invisibility not matter as much if at all. Invisibility is swallowed up in meaningfulness.

At least there is the consolation that we are not alone.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2018 at 3:42 PM, Xavier said:

Recently, I was having a conversation with an investigator and at one point, she made a very interesting observation. 

In the scriptures when describing humanity as a whole, the Lord uses “and the children of MEN”, or, “if MEN humble themselves...” . 

She felt that it demotes womenhood to be less than that of men and that God would never place such restrictions on women.

I made the attempt to express that in any language, the general way to describe humanity as a whole, it was by using the word “MEN” and that in noway it’s used to demean women. She wasn’t sastified with that answer. 

So, two questions:

1.- How could you explain and provide a suitable answer to explain this to people such as this lady?

2.- Is feminism going to destroy humanity to the point of abolishing anything and everything related masculinity?

It is very interesting that you mention this........

because at the last L.D.S. service that I was at.... in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada, we went through:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-14-priesthood-organization?lang=eng

Priesthood Organization

“Chapter 14: Priesthood Organization,” Gospel Principles (2011), 72–80

... and I decided to remain quiet even though I had a lot on my mind that related to this topic.  

I felt that perhaps I should talk about how my wife..... .six months before she met me......

was somehow shown to fast and pray for me for 35 days.  For four weeks, for three days / week she ate no solid food.....

drank only fruit juices..... and for the fifth week..... .seven days in a row...... only fruit juices

and I was 3000 north north east of her...... basking in the most off the scale Shalom / peace of mind that I ever had in my life.......

I remained silent because my astonishingly gifted wife is not an L.D.S. yet....... and is not likely to become L.D.S. because she does not

enjoy reading.... (she uses special contact lenses)......

I have the impression that women..... tend to hear the voice of Messiah Yeshua - Jesus somewhat more clearly than

perhaps ninety percent of us men.......

Of course there are many exceptions to that general rule.....

 

Edited by DennisTate
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DennisTate said:

I remained silent because my astonishingly gifted wife is not an L.D.S. yet....... and is not likely to become L.D.S. because she does not

enjoy reading.... (she uses special contact lenses)......

 

May I present to you... the LDS media on audio including all the standard works ... https://www.lds.org/media-library/accessing-media-audiobooks?lang=eng

;)

Your wife is a very special woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share