Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
On modesty specifically: I wish we didn’t have to have a vernacular that referenced female attire in any connotation about “modesty”. However, I do believe that this is often an unfair playing field. A man at Church talks about the modesty of his daughter, and wham, sexist 50’s-style patriarchal bad-guy… right? Yet, I simply say this. Women and girls are FAR more likely to wear revealing attire than are men and boys. If you’re not so sure about that, then look around next time you are at the gym, at the beach, or at a non-LDS wedding/reception/dinner. Is it right or wrong? I have no idea or opinion. My only point is we live in an asymmetrical world.
It’s asymmetrical because it’s patriarchal. Men are the ones who get to define roles and assess how we value men & women. Women are overvalued for their looks and fertility in a patriarchal society, not for the quality of our ideas or for our achievements in the workplace. We are eye candy. That’s why women’s clothing is more revealing. It’s because the men made the rules. Women would design clothing for comfort if we didn’t live in a patriarchal world.
Modesty is not about clothing specifically. Living modestly means living within our means and not being materialistic. Men can be immodest just as much as women in this definition: by buying a flashy car or technology to show off wealth. Modesty is about not boasting.
Quote:mod·est
1. unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one’s abilities or achievements.
2. (of an amount, rate, or level) relatively moderate, limited, or small.
For me, the elephant in the room is that the temple sealing itself is just so disappointing. It’s very business-like and cold, and when I went, included sexist inequalities in what was said. I don’t remember a word of what the sealer said, who was a person unknown to me and that I had no personal connection to at all, but having been to other sealings, I’m just glad he didn’t go on some old-man sexist soliloquy about gender roles like so many of these guys do. The sealing feels more impersonal, more like something that happens to you rather than something that you choose to do, that I would have found a court house registry more meaningful. Roy wrote:
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Gerald, your list is close to my own list. The only thing I’ll add on YSAs is that the biggest symptom of this problem is the infantilizing of YSAs, and that the church’s focus on “family / marriage” is the root cause. There’s this weird assumption that a married 20 year old is somehow capable of chaperoning the activities of unmarried 26 year olds. Marriage
= maturity and singledom = immaturity.
I think this also has to do with sex and single people in general not being able to be trusted because they do not have an approved outlet for sexual urges. I once read a book by an LDS woman that went through a divorce in the church in the early eighties. Her description of her interviews with her bishop after the divorce were pretty insulting in the patronizing way that it was assumed that now that she was divorced that she could not be trusted sexually.
Counterpoint: maybe that bishop was a weirdo who thought “Hey hey hey, I can ask this divorcee inappropriate questions. La la la la.”
Gerald, your list is close to my own list. The only thing I’ll add on YSAs is that the biggest symptom of this problem is the infantilizing of YSAs, and that the church’s focus on “family / marriage” is the root cause. There’s this weird assumption that a married 20 year old is somehow capable of chaperoning the activities of unmarried 26 year olds. Marriage = maturity and singledom = immaturity.I think this concept, particularly the notion of “qualifying for eternal life” (!) demonstrates a lack of understanding of grace and probably not understanding Paul’s writings at minimum. (BTW, eternal life is a gift for all who have lived. It’s exaltation that’s just for the top dogs.) I did a post about Romans that I think is really helpful to this discussion:
https://wheatandtares.org/2015/09/29/when-in-romans-do-as-the-romans-do/ Romans is the main epistle of Paul’s that explains the concept of grace, and it’s written to the two differing groups of church-goers: Jewish and Pagan converts. Because the Jewish converts had lived under the law of Moses, they were very works-focused and upset that the newcomers didn’t have to make the same sacrifices they did.
In the comments, I shared a story that will perhaps sound familiar to those of you who’ve been in Gospel Doctrine classes:
Quote:One thing I thought was interesting when I taught the lesson is that an older sister raised her hand and said, “It sounds like you’re saying that works aren’t necessary to be saved.” I said, “Yes, that is what Paul is saying.” Several class members audibly said “Faith without works is dead,” quoting James. I clarified, “Yes, James said that. These are two different people; Paul didn’t write James.
Just like there are different members of the Q12 who focus on different things at conference, two different people said those things.” There’s this tendency to harmonize the scriptures, and even general conference talks, as if they all came straight from one source, but they didn’t.
I actually fully expected the class to come back with the BOM scripture from 2 Nephi that we are saved “after all we can do.” Paul essentially disagrees with this view in Romans, unless the word “after” means something else, more like “despite.” Maybe if after means at the end of our life’s labors. Paul’s argument is that boasting of our works is a slippery slope used to justify excusing ourselves when compared to other sinners. This was what Paul was cautioning the Jews against. (Romans 9:3) Of course, Nephi would have still been operating under the Law of Moses, so those could be the works referred to. Paul points out that even if we have the law, we never DO “all we can do.” But that’s one reason Nephi comes off as a bit of a jerk.
I do think DFU really GETS grace in a way none of the other Q15 do, but that’s because he was raised Lutheran (or at least in a Lutheran part of Europe).
When it comes to open canon, I think it’s a huge mixed blessing. The attitude of it is helpful (in not taking the scriptures too seriously), but let’s be honest. So much of this stuff just doesn’t hold up. Jane Austen provides more insight into human nature and virtue than the Book of Mormon (I’ll put the New Testament on par), and light years ahead of the lawyer-written Proc which is mystifying in how little it understands human nature. It’s really just a prescribing of gender and family roles to uphold culture wars and fight gay marriage. It’s not wise. It’s not insightful. When I find that someone likes it, I instantly think less of them. Nibbler:
Quote:BAD:
Obsession with worthiness. Holding worthiness interviews. Temple recommend status. Pigeonholing people into a label – investigator, convert, inactive, worthy, not in good standing, etc.
Excellent point. Also, the idea that anything we do “earns” us God’s grace or that some of us have earned it and others have not. The new word is “qualifying” for grace.
We have a bonus program we do for our employees, and I was talking with one of them because she was upset that she had missed one of the growth goals she’s been assigned, and she said it wasn’t fair if she wasn’t paid anyway. I told her she needed to get rid of that idea because her being paid was a byproduct of two things: 1) company growth, and 2) our generosity at being willing to share profits with our employees. You don’t get a bonus just for doing the basics.
mom3 wrote:
Someday I hope Tom Christofferson receives the wholeness he bravely gave up. If we made Saints in this church – he would be my suggestion.
+1Quote:rrosskopf wrote:
Please educate yourself or at minimum,don’t assume you know more than real women who have women’s bodies.
I have nothing against designing more comfortable garments. I have a wife. She is going through menopause. You don’t think I know the issues? I’m pretty sure that all those men who designed women’s garments had wives as well, and I’m not entirely sure they weren’t designed by women. I can’t picture men doing the sewing in 1840. So please – fill free to explain how it is all the fault of ignorant men.
Not experiencing the issues means that no, you don’t really know the issues. My dad had an enlarged prostrate, and I can tell you for a fact that I have no idea (nor does my mother) what that is like.There are 49 recorded possible symptoms of menopause. Different women have different symptoms. Some women take hormones, and others can’t or don’t. There are many different manifestations. While women may be seamstresses, that’s not the same as the approvers of designs. That is done by the Q15, and last I checked, they were all men. None of them have ever been gynocologists, either (although even in that case, it’s all theoretical knowledge, not experiential).
rrosskopf wrote:
There seems to be a tendancy to treat every problem as if it is insurmountable. I don’t believe in that philosophy. Certainly there is a cost to faith. If your faith were free, it would be of little value to you. It is all too easy to come up with excuses. Laban can kill a hundred men; he can certainly kill us. Instead of dwelling on the negative, shouldn’t we encourage people? Literally give them the courage to act in faith?
One of my favorite tweets was: “We all know that Joseph Smith didn’t wear his garments at Carthage, but did you also know that he never wore them during menopause?” You can’t faith your way out of a yeast infection which is a problem women face that seems to still have never been conceived of by the males who are overseeing the approval of designs. You can’t square that circle with a layer of fabric from hip to knees which is never healthy if that’s an issue. For health reasons, when women wore ankle length dresses, they did not wear underpants as female parts should not be covered in fabrics that can’t breathe. There are other health issues unique to women as well.
Please educate yourself or at minimum, don’t assume you know more than real women who have women’s bodies.
LookingHard wrote:
I read this last week and loved it. It was so real. If anyone thinks that Elders are angelic, just read this. It was a great read.
Aw thanks!
Fascinating! All the more reason that the dinky little mass produced Christus statue was an odd gift to give to the Pope on their visit. SD: Quote:“What they found was that most missionaries hit their peak baptisms in their last six months. So, just when missionaries were getting effective, they finished their missions, leaving all that potential unused.”
That makes it particularly galling that women only serve for 18 months rather than 24 like the men. I have often said men should serve 18 months so that it’s equal, but my husband agrees with you that the last 6 months are when he really got a command of the language and figured out what he was doing. Of course, back then, women had a leg up with 3 years of college under our belts and a bit more maturity than the average 19 year old Elder. But it is frustrating as a woman to be constantly encouraged to do the easy things, then looked at as if we can’t handle things.
Dande48: Quote:“did you know we are the richest religious organization on earth?”
Maybe if you only consider liquid assets. Have you not been to the Vatican? They are literally sitting on a stockpile of priceless artwork and statuary, to the point that a bunch of it is gathering dust in closets.
SD: Quote:“the statement that the prophet would never lead us astray”
And so far, he hasn’t! It’s our leader worship that has led us astray. He can only lead us where we are willing to go, after all.
Quote:FWIW, I hate the idea of prostitution, but I don’t have answers to how to deal with it. It’s been around for a very long time. It saddens me that so many women find themselves in a situation where it is their only viable way forward. Undoubtedly, it works for some, but I have a feeling it is bad for most.
I agree, and I keep thinking that it’s poverty exploitation. People who have better options almost never resort to this. And then, part of me thinks that all of “women’s work” is like this (meaning the stuff that men want women to do as financially dependent wives). Everyone wants it for free, and nobody wants to pay for it. A lot of these aging prostitutes in Amsterdam understand that they are the product they are selling, and they realize they have a sell-by date. There are so many wacky things about this topic, things I feel women have to think about and men likely don’t.
