Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 16

Here's one question I had years ago:

Why aren't women permitted into the priesthood?

I would love to hear a good reason for that.

Because the Lord wants it that way.....read here

"Woman! know your limits!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

J

Wow, that is really condescending to women.  The comment section is even worse than the article.

Also, gotta love the "because God said so" defense.

TV's Frink said:

Also, gotta love the "because God said so" defense.

 It really is pure comedy gold, can't believe people fall for this sort of thing

J

I just read back through the first few pages of this thread.  I seem to be grumpier this week.

;-)

Did I offend Darth Ender with my question? :\

No.  I'm working.  I haven't had time to formulate a thorough answer.  It will probably have to wait till tomorrow.  It's late and I'm still not ready to go home.

TV's Frink said:

I just read back through the first few pages of this thread.  I seem to be grumpier this week.

;-)

 I can't say that I'll argue with you.  I'm surprised you've been so moody.  On the other hand, I was really grumpy this weekend too, which probably made my irritation and certain people's behaviors only that much worse.  Hopefully I'm not so tired and grouchy today.

Jaitea said:

TV's Frink said:

Also, gotta love the "because God said so" defense.

 It really is pure comedy gold, can't believe people fall for this sort of thing

J

 Harharhar!  Those stupid Mormons believe all that crap, just like all the other religions that believe something because God said so.  *Snort*

Gotta love the attack that "because society said so," such things are wrong.  You know, what is wrong with that line of reasoning?  If you believe in God, believe that he gives commandments, believe that he has actually spoken to man, and in the case of my church, believe he continues to speak to man, why is it hard to believe that he actually said something that maybe society doesn't agree with?  To deny us the right to use that defense in essence denies us the right to believe God has ever spoken to man.  God created men and women different.  He created them to do different things.  That doesn't mean that one is greater than the other.  Just different.

You may not agree.  That is your right.  But that doesn't mean that we put women down, keep them under our thumbs, and make them slave in the kitchen while we drink caffeine free Barque's root beer in front of the TV.

Jaitea, I've always liked you.  But as of the past few days, I've really lost a lot of respect for you, considering your constant mockery of others' religious beliefs.  You don't have to agree with our beliefs or our values, but to be a believer in God and an adherent to a religion doesn't make one an idiot.  I consider myself well educated and intelligent, yet I remain a member of a faith that provides you with pure comedy gold.  Perhaps you find it so funny not because of your superior intellect, but because of your extreme ignorance on the subject at hand.

Laugh your way to the bank with my reply to Reegar, folks.

Here is probably the most concise explanations of the difference between the roles of men and women.  I can't tell you how often I've thought I'd prefer to switch places.  Men are to preside in love and righteousness, hence they are given the priesthood.  Women are to provide love and stability in the home.  Yet, families make things work in their own individual ways, and as probably nearly any married man here knows, the "head of the household" is simply a figurehead behind the real leader ;)

Anyhow, I don't know if this answers the question well, but that horrible link Jaitea provided is probably the best start to that answer.

I'm sorry to let you down _ender, I don't proclaim to have a superior intellect, I just see things differently than you do, the comments on the link are very similar to the Harry Enfield sketch's attitude.

This attitude just seams locked in a time capsule, If you see that thats the way things should be in your religion and don't see that it looks a bit odd from the outside then I'm sorry that I've offended you.

I too regard you differently, it is strange how perception can change

J

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Except for football.  Girls can't play it. ;-)

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Except for football.  Girls can't play it. ;-)

 Liverpool Ladies FC seam to be doing VERY well 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25403737

J

Jaitea said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Except for football.  Girls can't play it. ;-) 

 Liverpool Ladies FC seam to be doing VERY well 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25403737

J

 WRONG FOOTBALL!!!

timdiggerm said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Can we get some explanation on that?

 

 Why does that need explanation?  I don't think our capabilities are limited by our gender, except for isolated things like giving birth or playing football.

TV's Frink said:

Jaitea said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Except for football.  Girls can't play it. ;-) 

 Liverpool Ladies FC seam to be doing VERY well 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25403737

J

 WRONG FOOTBALL!!!

 Sorry Frink, you meant American Football

J

I get very defensive about these things.  My reason for seeing you as laughing is because you see believing such things as "comedy gold," comedy usually involving laughing.  I may have been quick to snap, and I admit that I'm a bit grouchy (probably due to my weird schedule and lack of sleep).  But I think there is a difference between grouchiness and what seems to clearly be condescension.  One is a mood, one is an attitude towards others.  If I am wrong about your attitude, then I'm sorry, but it has come off very strongly that way.

Jaitea said:

I'm sorry to let you down _ender, I don't proclaim to have a superior intellect, I just see things differently than you do, the comments on the link are very similar to the Harry Enfield sketch's attitude.

This attitude just seams locked in a time capsule, If you see that thats the way things should be in your religion and don't see that it looks a bit odd from the outside then I'm sorry that I've offended you.

I too regard you differently, it is strange how perception can change

J

 I get very defensive about these things.  My reason for seeing you as laughing is because you see believing such things as "comedy gold," comedy usually involving laughing.  I may have been quick to snap, and I admit that I'm a bit grouchy (probably due to my weird schedule and lack of sleep).  But I think there is a difference between grouchiness and what seems to clearly be condescension.  One is a mood, one is an attitude towards others.  If I am wrong about your attitude, then I'm sorry, but it has come off very strongly that way.

timdiggerm said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Can we get some explanation on that?

 

 Are you addressing my church's definitions or his perception that they "shan't mix" (which clearly is not the case in my church)?

In response to Frink, no where does it say they cannot have different roles.  I provided a link that showed such was justifiable.  But the idea is that such can lead to an ideal family situation.

What I find is interesting is that right and wrong are defined to some entirely by social norms.  Has it occurred to those who feel this way that if they maintain their views for the next fifty years that they will be looked at as outdated by their children and grandchildren?  While the trend has been liberalization, it is not always so, and things might even swing the other way.  If fifty years down the road, society says that it is best for the father to be the primary bread-winner and the mother to be the primary nurturer, would you suddenly think you were wrong all along?  Probably not.  If my church's views look odd from the outside, bear in mind that many women and men are quite content with it from the inside, and that our societal norms tell us it's okay.  If you feel Muslims have the right to tell their women to wear a burka or live by Shari'a Law without ridicule, then why not allow Mormons to keep the priesthood with men.  It's a privilege to have it, sure, but it's not the only privilege in our faith.

TV's Frink said:

timdiggerm said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry but I can't buy any worldview that insists there are defined roles for men and women and the two shan't mix.

Can we get some explanation on that?

 

 Why does that need explanation?  I don't think our capabilities are limited by our gender, except for isolated things like giving birth or playing football.

 While you may have phrased it this way primarily for comedic value, understand that giving the priesthood to men has nothing to do with ability.  Nothing.