Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 17

Also, studies have shown that men and women's brains are wired differently. They think differently and act in different ways. Men are naturally aggressive and protective while women are more compassionate and gentle by nature. It is because of these biological/psychological differences that Mormons, Catholics, etc. believe that men are naturally the providers in a family while women are best suited to take care of children. Women and men are definitely different, so why not give them separate roles? Exceptions can be allowed of course, but the genders shouldn't be blended into one because they are not one.

I don't think that was his point.  He was simply pointing out that men and women are different, and therefore not be forced into all the same roles.

Correct. Also, with no offense meant to women, I tend to find that male speakers are usually better than female speakers (my mother shares this opinion) and I attribute that to some of the differences between the sexes.

EDIT: To clarify what I'm getting at, I think this is one attribute that I think goes in favour of male priesthood.

RicOlie_2 said:

 Men are naturally aggressive and protective while women are more compassionate and gentle by nature. 

 I would think that females would be perfectly suitable for the job then.....but I understand that it is not in your beliefs

J

darth_ender said:

I don't think that was his point.  He was simply pointing out that men and women are different, and therefore not be forced into all the same roles.

 lol, who is doing the forcing into roles here?

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 Men are naturally aggressive and protective while women are more compassionate and gentle by nature. 

 I would think that females would be perfectly suitable for the job then.....but I understand that it is not in your beliefs

J

 I appreciate that you are not being so condescending anymore. Overall, I just think that men are better suited for the role than women, but the way you see that depends on how you view the priesthood, I guess.

Sure, everyone has different personalities and thinks differently, but there are certain differences between the two genders in the actual structure of the brain. Another biological factor that contributes to the different roles of man and woman is the higher amount of testosterone in men, etc. which affects their behaviour.

RicOlie_2 said:

Also, with no offense meant to women, I tend to find that male speakers are usually better than female speakers (my mother shares this opinion) and I attribute that to some of the differences between the sexes.

I think there was a scientific study done that indicated that men respond to the male voice more than the female voice (that wouldn't explain your mother's reaction, though).

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

 I would think that females would be perfectly suitable for the job then.....but I understand that it is not in your beliefs

J

 I appreciate that you are not being so condescending anymore. Overall, I just think that men are better suited for the role than women, but the way you see that depends on how you view the priesthood, I guess.

 Hey, hold on a second, I was never condescending!

The thing that pissed off _ender was that I described the reasoning on the LDS site as "Comedy Gold"

That was it......now had I found this reasoning about why women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church:

The movement for women's ordination in the Catholic Church, therefore, will never get anywhere. Other Christian denominations, to justify ordaining women, have had to change their understanding of the nature of the priesthood from one which conveys an indelible spiritual character on the man who is ordained to one in which the priesthood is treated as a mere function. But to abandon the 2,000-year-old understanding of the nature of the priesthood would be a doctrinal change. The Catholic Church could not do so and remain the Catholic Church.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm

......Now I can understand.....and without the comedy effect

J

The lengths that people go to in order to justify and maintain power...

Could be wrong, correct me if I am, but aren't recent studies finding male and female brains far more similar than previously thought?

Even if that were the case, the issue is only peripherally related.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

I don't think that was his point.  He was simply pointing out that men and women are different, and therefore not to be forced into all the same roles.

 lol, who is doing the forcing into roles here?

Societal pressures practically force women to assume the roles of men and women these days, far more than in the reverse.  I know far more working single moms than single dads.  Yet, society says they can, therefore they must.

I ask you again, did you read that link I sent.  It's called The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and it speaks our views on roles.  It states the ideal, but also states that individual circumstances may vary.

The primary role difference you are getting up in arms about is the priesthood.  And somehow that is so the men can stay in power?  Really, you know little about my church and the ways it works to elevate women.  Just because it doesn't put them in the exact same box as the men, it goes to great lengths to strengthen them, give them leadership, and often our leaders speak about how they are better than we are.

There's a joke I heard recently that requires a little explanation beforehand.  Every six months my church has a general conference, a broadcast where our leaders speak and we all can watch and listen.  Part of the broadcast involves a men-only session.  But the week before has a women only session.  So the joke goes like this: I went to the men's session (priesthood session) this week, and it was nice to hear them say how we were doing a good job and right on target.  Then I looked around and realized I'd accidentally gone to the women's session.

*ba-dum-tish*

I'll find you some quotes later.  In any case, you spoke about the lengths some will go to in order to preserve power.  But really, my church does not offer much power to preserve.  Only the top leadership gets any money out of what they do, and it's only a portion of their former professional salaries in order to meet their needs...certainly no large amount of money.  Other than that, they work extremely hard and the only substantial reward is the virtue of doing what they believe to be right.  The rest of us (remembering that I'm in the bishopric, meaning I'm putting in additional hours of work in my calling) do our work for free.  For me that means around 15 extra hours a week.  For the bishop, it probably is closer to 20-30.  Yeah, that's the reward and power we crave and get because we're the lucky ones to hold the priesthood.

Are any of the top leadership women?

The major church leadership is the Prophet/President, then the Quorum of Twelve, and then the Something of Seventy-Something. All men.

Women often teach Sunday School with males as students, and there's the Relief Society (was never sure what the RS did). But that's more on a ward-basis.

I asked two women and one man. One woman was my missionary/teacher, the other was a mother whose family drove me every Sunday morning. The missionary (her hand-written lesson notes are stored safely in a box for sentimental reasons) gave a vague, somewhat robotic (if I may) answer about God-appointed authority. The mother did the same, but afterward in privacy elaborated on her answer by saying that once I enter the Temple, I'll see that there's more to it. 

The man essentially said the church doesn't have priestesses because women are too busy with the important job of mother. His wife was the "home manager".

TV's Frink said:

Are any of the top leadership women?

 Yes.

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/general-auxiliaries?lang=eng

Though admittedly, they are outnumbered greatly.

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

This does nothing to counter my point that it is both a privilege and a burden to hold the priesthood.  The man who was made bishop and nominated me as his counselor is currently doing this for the second time.  He has told me more than once that he did not want to be bishop.  When he was interviewed and asked to be bishop, he said, "I already did that once.  I shouldn't have to do it again."  He was told by the interviewer that he had already been a bishop twice before becoming stake president (presiding authority over several congregations, unpaid, almost a second FT job), so my bishop had no excuse.  This is not a church of ambition.  You may accuse other male-dominated churches of such, but it simply won't fly with this one.  People serve because they are asked, believing that they are following the will of God.  Priesthood is more of an opportunity to serve, not a position of prestige, power, wealth, or ambition.

Reegar said:

I asked two women and one man. One woman was my missionary/teacher, the other was a mother whose family drove me every Sunday morning. The missionary (her hand-written lesson notes are stored safely in a box for sentimental reasons) gave a vague, somewhat robotic (if I may) answer about God-appointed authority. The mother did the same, but afterward in privacy elaborated on her answer by saying that once I enter the Temple, I'll see that there's more to it. 

This is weird.  The temple covers the Creation and the Garden of Eden, as well as the time shortly after being cast out.  What I can say about it is that it is a drama-based ordinance.  In that light, the only thing that could mean what she's referring to is also simply found in Genesis 3:16.  We as a church never feel that the "rul[ing] over" one's wife means lording over her, bossing her around, or anything of that nature.  It is probably best summarized by a Greek Orthodox woman who said "The man is the head [of the household], but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."  This essentially is true.  Different roles, equal importance.  They are to co-preside.

The man essentially said the church doesn't have priestesses because women are too busy with the important job of mother. His wife was the "home manager".

 That's his view.  The real reason is, well, to put it frinkly, because God said so :P

I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?

       ^All of this was fulfilled in the time of the Apostles. There's nothing to indicate this special charge extended beyond the life of Peter or applied to some group of Romans thousands of years later.

         As to female clergy, there is a very curious reference to a female Apostle Percilla. 

        I see the nature of the gender roles as having similarities to the modern parlaimentary system. The man is to be Chief of State(household) and the women should serve as Head of Government(household.) The Father should be given honor as The Chief but we all know where the real power over the family matters resides in a healthy system.

darth_ender said:

The man essentially said the church doesn't have priestesses because women are too busy with the important job of mother. His wife was the "home manager".

 That's his view.  The real reason is, well, to put it frinkly, because God said so :P

 Now I don't want you to think this is me on my high horse again,......but this type of answer was what I found on the LDS site & the reason why I annoyed you earlier,.....it's the 'don't ask' or 'just because' reasoning.

I have 2 kids, if my son asks me for £10 and I ask him what he wants it for and he answers,...'just' or 'because',..... those aren't proper reasons,.....I'll press him until I find out what it's for, then I'll make a decision whether I give it to him or not.

I hear parents giving reasons to kids why they aren't allowed to do things or have things with, 'because I said so!'....this isn't an answer, it's a don't bother me response....It's better to give a reason why you think that what they want is too expensive or what they want to do is too dangerous etc.

The explanaton why women can't be priests in the Catholic Church has an explanation, which you can reason with, you can question that reason because of the changes in society today,.....but the explanations in the LDS to coffee drinking, women priests etc as 'The Lord says so'......to me......personally......sound half baked.

I have known you and respectected you for a few years _ender, and I know you are a wise and intelligent guy, but what harm would it do if you question.

In the Protestant Church I remember that the Lord encourages people to question, not just to follow.

Again, I'm trying not to push too much, just for you to take a step backwards to look at it from my perspective, I know you love your faith

J

Jaitea said:

darth_ender said:

The man essentially said the church doesn't have priestesses because women are too busy with the important job of mother. His wife was the "home manager".

 That's his view.  The real reason is, well, to put it frinkly, because God said so :P

 Now I don't want you to think this is me on my high horse again,......but this type of answer was what I found on the LDS site & the reason why I annoyed you earlier,.....it's the 'don't ask' or 'just because' reasoning.

I have 2 kids, if my son asks me for £10 and I ask him what he wants it for and he answers,...'just' or 'because',..... those aren't proper reasons,.....I'll press him until I find out what it's for, then I'll make a decision whether I give it to him or not.

I hear parents giving reasons to kids why they aren't allowed to do things or have things with, 'because I said so!'....this isn't an answer, it's a don't bother me response....It's better to give a reason why you think that what they want is too expensive or what they want to do is too dangerous etc.

The explanaton why women can't be priests in the Catholic Church has an explanation, which you can reason with, you can question that reason because of the changes in society today,.....but the explanations in the LDS to coffee drinking, women priests etc as 'The Lord says so'......to me......personally......sound half baked.

I have known you and respectected you for a few years _ender, and I know you are a wise and intelligent guy, but what harm would it do if you question.

In the Protestant Church I remember that the Lord encourages people to question, not just to follow.

Again, I'm trying not to push too much, just for you to take a step backwards to look at it from my perspective, I know you love your faith

J

 To be fair, Mormons do question and speculate. Even structured classes could turn into theory fests at the drop of a hat, especially where it concerned the universe's distant past or the afterlife (terrestrial, telestial, celestial kingdoms, the process of exaltation, etc.) You are allowed to ask off-the-wall questions, but there won't always be solid answers.

Protestant churches generally discourage that, because most are too wrapped up in ostentatious worship.

The area where I could see questioning being met with rebuke or the cold shoulder would be skepticism of the BoM, PoGP, or D&C. If you're already baptized, that is. Because to be a Mormon is to have a testimony of their validity.

(And yes, to be as balanced as possible: I did notice a tendency to be harsher with Genesis-Revelations than any other scriptures. I suspect you could probably get away with being dismissive of a few prophets or books there, but I don't know for sure.)

Thank you for the responses, Darth Ender.

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Are any of the top leadership women?

 Yes.

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/general-auxiliaries?lang=eng

Though admittedly, they are outnumbered greatly.

https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

 If they are part of the top leadership...why aren't they on the same page?  Why are they "Auxiliaries" and not "Authorities"?

The definitions of these two words sets the women up as inferior in the organizational structure.