Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I don’t know what movement you are talking about here, nor what group you are saying this movement is belittling. The post is about a book that describes childhood development as relates to gender roles.
I wasn’t refering to the book. That’s a very old theory, and I agree with the premise.
I was referring to the modern wave of feminism. It has, in my experience, extensively belittled men, by using terms such as “toxic masculinity” in order to further their cause. I think it’s counterproductive. By using terms, like “toxic masculinity” (among others) we are doing exactly what the book discusses. It is assigning the trait “toxic” (comprimising a variety of traits, all bad) primarily to the male gender. It makes men feel ashamed for being men.
What we really want, is to do without toxic behavior in all its forms, wherever it comes from. Calling a male “effeminate” for tearing up with emotion is counterproductive. You can be 100% a man, and still show emotion. You can be 100% a woman, and still be aggressive. If both men and women can posess a trait, and should feel comfortable in posessing a trait, why apply those traits primarily to a single gender? Assigning a label to a trait which conflicts with the trait-barer’s identity, will not make them more self-accepting. Which is what we all really want, isn’t it?
Roy wrote:
I think we can all agree that the church leadership has been operating from a different mindset then perhaps a “warts and all” historian would use. They operate more like lawyers, PR people, or CEOs. That is reasonable and understandable without questioning their moral compass.
I question the moral compass of most all lawyers, PR, and CEOs.
😆 I don’t trust them either. I guess part of me hoped the “True and Living Church” would be better than that.Old Timer wrote:
dande48, “shady” carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest.
A doctor who misdiagnoses or mistreats usually isn’t being “dishonest” either. I strongly believe the prophets and Church leaders are being honest and have the best of intentions when presenting “revelation”. If there are mistakes, they are honest mistakes. But when it’s brought to light, that what you said under authority was false, and you seek to “cover it up”, that is what I call both “dishonest” and “shady”.
D&C 121:37 wrote:
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; butwhen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Yeah, I’ve read Robert Greene. Great writer, highly amoral. I’m not interested in anything else he has to say. “Masculinity” by definition is “qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men.” “Femininity” by defintion is “qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of women.” By using those words, in conjucntion with “toxic” you are applying negative characteristics to gender. It is inherently sexist. Toxic is toxic, no matter where it pops up.
The thing is, I WISH everyone were treated with more kindness and compassion, no matter what traits they posess. I wish virtuous people could achieve positions of power. I don’t think anyone should feel disadvantaged because of their gender. I think cat callers are butts, and I think the rich men in power (or anyone else) who sexually harass
anyoneshould all be run over by a truck. But I cannot support a movement that belittles another group in order to further their cause. It’s not right when men do it, and it’s not right when women do it. Period. I’d go with the term “Machavellian”. Calling it “toxic masculinity” is sexist; a woman can be just as much of a d*** as any guy. And I’d put Robert Greene deep into the deep in the camp of “toxic masculinity”, as well as anyone who applies his teachings.
Old Timer wrote:
Quote:Ability to learn new skills or knowledge
Confidence in learning new things is a major component of future educational and vocational success. Part of the intent is to give members an easy way to feel like they have the ability to learn in an academic setting. That really is huge, psychologically.
Yes, I know. My point is, that’s not a statistic. They claimed a statistic. It’s “Not even wrong”.
When I was young, I heard that the three “S”s were guaranteed to grab everyone’s attention: Sex, Satan, and the Second Coming. Food storage ties in nicely with that last one; not to mention, former prophets were very specific in stating we’d one day need it. It makes people feel proud and excited. For many, I’d almost say they can’t wait for the world to end, to show everybody how right they were all along. Can you imagine it? The apocalypse has broken out, everyone is starving, and the faithful member benevolently shares their food storage with their neighbor. “Don’t you wish you listed to the prophet, like me?” Of course, they’ll be instantly converted. And when Christ finally comes, they’ll get to walk over the corpses of all the haters, and Christ will embrace them and praise them for their faithfulness…
I think the Church has begun to move away from prophecy, and into advisement, at least as far as the GAs and Q15 are concerned. Of course, individuals and local leaders will still prophecy… but it’ll be held up to much less scrutiny, doesn’t have the backing of the Church heads, and can be easily written off if it’s bizarre or doesn’t come true. That’s what happened with food storage. It went from prophecy to “advisement”.
Old Timer wrote:
Or it is an example of someone who sincerely believed something and then, for some reason, realized it was not truth and merely an incorrect opinion.
The main difference between them, and you or me, is that they claim authority, and use that authority to convince others of their correctness of what they taught. My wife might believe our kid has an ear infection, but she doesn’t claim she “knows”. A doctor, on the other hand, who is the “authority” on illness and infections, is expected to “know” whether our kid has an ear infection. If he were to claim he “knew”, and it were later proven flase… I’d say that calls the doctor’s authority into question. Enough mistakes, and the doctor will have their authority rescinded. My wife, on the other hand, would’ve just been using her best judgement, no matter how confident she was.
Updating your beliefs based on new evidence is one of the most admirable things a person can do. Continuing to make truth claims on the basis of authority, after former claims have proven false… that’s what I find “shady”.
Old Timer wrote:
Although they would not get the same revenue as from their traditional tuition, the students are ones from whom they would not receive any revenue otherwise – and online courses are much cheaper to administer than on-ground courses.
I think this is the way most college eduation is leaning in the future. It just makes sense. I’d even say it would increase their revenue. Once the courses are created, there’s practically no overhead. I wouldn’t be suprised if they made more than the on campus courses, if you factor in land cost, building maintenance, teacher salaries, etc. If I were to start a university, I could choose 100% online over campus any day. It just makes sense.
I am proud of BYU and the Church for offering online college courses long before it was popular. I want to say they’ve been around since 2003? (*Edit: 1921 for “distant learning”. Impressive!). Just to be clear, it’s a
verygood thing the Church is doing. I’m so glad church members can get a cheap college eduation. I think it’s super important. SilentDawning wrote:
I guess I don’t get the purpose of the Pathway program other than to let people who are otherwise not qualified enter BYU-I. The courses seem pretty light. What is meant by “professional skills”?
Semantics again, but it’s technically “BYU-I online”, rather than BYU-I.
(for those seeking a new or better job)”. 90% “Ability to learn new skills or knowledge”.
That last one… what does that even mean? That’s not even a sentence.
DarkJedi wrote:
It’s not necessarily either/or God did it or Moses was a false prophet. There are certainly other points of view, one of which is Moses wasn’t speaking as a prophet then and/or the things recorded are his (or the recorder’s) opinion.
It wasn’t his opinion that it was his opinion. It might be your opinion. But it’s a shady authority who calls what they claimed was “truth” to be “opinion”, the moment it’s proven false.
Good post, Hawkgrrrl. I think what perturbs be the most (I can’t think of a better word), is that policy doesn’t make the Church more or less true. Policy is symptomatic of doctrine. Even IF the Church had the “correct” policy all along, that wouldn’t change the underlying truthfulness of the Church. As an extreme example, take the Mosaic Law: there’s a LOT of “bad policies” in there, we no longer follow. Thank goodness! But the trouble is… we either believe in a God who issued those policies, or Moses was a false prophet, because he said those policies were from God. There’s really no middle ground. Pick your poison.
The Church is either redefining past revelation to “personal opinion”, “best judgement” and “we never said we were perfect”… or are maintaining that it was revelation, which was later overwritten. We still have the doctrines of polygamy. We still practice it, at least as far as the law allows. We are still affected by it. But to come out and denounce the former revelation would be Church suicide. Or with blacks in the priesthood… It was racist times and early Church leaders made a mistake. Please ignore all the racist stuff they taught.
DarkJedi wrote:
Dande I do think the credits transfer. That’s why they do it through BYU-I, they’re accredited. Of course what other school is going to put Book of Mormon classes anywhere but as an elective which probably translates to “instead of 128 credits to graduate you’ll need 130.”
I depends on the university admissions, but you’d be surprised. A lot of fundamental courses don’t transfer between universities, even as “electives”. If the new university doesn’t have a near identical course, they usually won’t accept it. BYU-I’s accreditation only means their degrees are valid, not that their individual courses will count towards a degree at another university. I’d be willing to bet the “skills” courses are far too broad to count, especially for a three credit course.
DarkJedi wrote:
Agreed. Women have lustful thoughts as well (and let’s not forget the gay men). Although I really like to steer the conversation away from the idea that seeing a woman’s shoulders or knees somehow makes it the woman’s fault a man has lustful thoughts. That’s one of my pet peeves about how modesty is addressed in the church.
It’s not just lust. I think it’s breaking modesty if you’re dressing or acting in a way that causes others to feel uncomfortable or jealous. I think it’s important to recognize what we do influences others, and try to act in such a way that we’re a good influence. But you’re right, we should still take responsibility for our own shortcomings regardless of what’s going on around us.
I don’t think anyone these days has lustful thoughts around shoulders or knees. Historically, that might’ve been a problem. And in certain rural tribes, it might not be “immodest” or “sexual” for a woman to go topless. But I don’t think that’d be appropriate; not with me, not with our society. Modesty standards aren’t set it stone. But that still doesn’t mean we should toss those standards away. If we want change, it should be a slow process to give people time to adjust.
With men, apparently having “facial hair” was against modesty standards. I’d say it was treated much in the same way as “multiple piercings” for women. Church leaders are still forbidden from having facial hair. It was the same way for men at BYU… though I remember during my time they changed the policy to allow clean kept mustaches. Suddenly, a good chunk of guys on campus started looking like pedophiles.
neverwore a shirt, off-campus. NEVER. And of course, we’ve all known those guys who never shower. One last example… I remember on my mission hearing the Church got an offer from BMW, which would allow them to purchase BMWs for missionaries at a cheaper rate than Toyota Carollas. But the Church turned them down, because of the appearance it would send. I didn’t like it at the time, but now I feel it’s a very good example of maintaining the right kind of modesty. Appearances are important. Cars should (IMO) be a utility tool to get from point A to point B, not a status symbol.
Daughter1 wrote:
The young women are given very explicit directions of what constitutes “immodest clothing.” Young mend are told to “maintain modesty.” When I was young, young men liked to wear pants that were falling off so that their boxers showed. They dressed slovenly and sloppily in general, but the loss of pants was a frequent risk they ran. But does the book tell them to wear pants? Nope.
Haha, but they should. Some men could certainly use that sort of modesty “talk”.
