Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Obviously, I’m having difficulty with the quote function on this forum. (Among other things) anyway, more to come after more reflection. Regards. Roy wrote:
Willhewonder,I am not familiar with what you are referencing. House full of females, war between men and women, white goddess, Uncivility of snowflakes?
Please post some links or add some explanations in parentheses as I would like to try to follow the threads of thought.
I’m sorting through it myself. I found it interesting that Sister McBaine’s (Mom3 attributed authorship to her although I didn’t see her name mentioned on the Fairmormon link) article on Reuben’s Fairmormon link mentioned Laurel Ulrich and discussed a cooperative paradigm for basing discussions of gender based inequality in the Church.
In her book Sister Ulrich talked about women in the priesthood and leadership. She made a case for much more autonomy and leadership in the days of Joseph Smith than later in the day of Brigham Young. Her discussion of women giving blessings and presiding in meetings is powerful and moving. Yet, there is a cooperative sense about it rather than a competitive flavor to it as the world seems to want to frame the discussion. Nibley decried the possible antagonistic competition between patriarchy and matriarchy in struggles for supremacy and advocated the synergistic cooperative approach suggested by Sister McBaine. Nibley argued that cooperative and collaborative division of labors for workability was the only way out of an otherwise internecine warfare.
Robert Graves described a world in which matriarchy had triumphed and males were virtually superfluous, except on one orgiastic night a year. Grave’s matriarchy became vulnerable to a barbarian invasion of Patriarchal proto-Greeks that paved the way for Western Civilization. I think it very possible that the combative language of gender equality and/or competition originated then, and still plagues us.
Finally, there are so many worldly influences inherent in the membership of the Church, that as long as things are seen in a competitive way, why should those who seem to be on top give any ground, especially when contemporary results of such concessions and attempts to “share the wealth” result in outfits like “Black Lives Matter” and “snowflakes” that deny the civility to others that permitted themselves to come about in the first place? The fruit of such concessions seem to be enabling those who do not want to share, but instead want it all. Why would rational folks contribute to their own extinction? The exercise of caution about enabling such a slippery slope may be in order.
Just wondering if all these disparate ideas can be formed into a better picture than the old primary version of why things are the way they are with the priesthood and men. I do like Sister McBaine’s post, and think it may be the approach to follow out of the woods.
I read the post on BCC and slept on it. This morning, four disparate thoughts are knocking at the door, so to speak as well as a reflection on my son’s ADHD struggles: 1) What would Laurel Ulrich say about the post with regard to
A House Full Of Females2) How would Hugh Nibley comment on it in the context of his remarks about the war between men and women,
3) What comments would Robert Graves make about the post vis a vis his writings on the white goddess and the coming of the Greeks,
4) What has the uncivility of the so called “snowflakes” got to do with projected possible progressive developments in this area?
With regard to the ADHD – perhaps my son gets it from me and not his mom’s side of his families!
I dunno DJ, that may be a bit of a stretch. But, in view of the original items posted by DBMormon, if it can’t be stretched that far, maybe just because Alma said it doesn’t make it so. But, although I think there is a lot more to say about this, I didn’t mean to hijack the thread and make it about sexual sin. I just meant to say that perhaps we get more excited about sexual sin than God does and if we didn’t, maybe we could forgive Joseph Smith a little easier. Still, I appreciate the perspective, and also the sensitivities about it you mentioned. Thanks.
Wow! This is part of a much larger discussion that needs to take place in every unit, and rarely occurs. You were treated very unfairly. I think the larger issue is, ” To what extent do Church executive authorities have the right to presume upon covenants that they assume we have made?” But regardless of what the assumptions are, nothing should proceed without adequate respect, etiquette and observance of personal choice. I’m sorry you were treated this way. I’m struggling with the “larger issue” currently. LookingHard wrote:
Willhewonder wrote:What if the reason sexual sin is bad is not because it is so bad inherently, but because it is such a distraction from the real work of the Gospel?
Well sex probably causes more people to scream, “Oh God!” more than most sermons.😮
😆 “I think that sexual sin second only to murder scripture is a misinterpretation and not at all what Alma was talking about.” DJ You maybe right about that, but I would need to parse through the words like I’ve seen Ray do before I can weigh in on it. However, I note a couple of otherwise great inconsistencies on the subject:
1) There is relatively little made of sexual sin for those about to be newly baptized compared to existing members, and 2) We understand that the work has been done for most of our founding fathers, many of whom were known for extramarital sexual activity.
Some random thoughts: 1) My schizophrenic aunt had to be forcibly prevented from fasting on fast Sundays when she was in the State Hospital.
2) My dad used to tell me not to be too smart, or I might have a schizophrenic crisis.
3) I once insisted so strongly during a prayer on receiving a verbal confirmation to an idea that I heard a confirmation, but can not now say it wasn’t an aural hallucination.
4) I have prayed not to receive visits from the other side by those who have passed on because I feared inability to distinguish between a real visit and a hallucination.
But I still believe in visions and signs, etc.
Wow. This is a fantastic discussion. Do you think that one of the keys to all this anguish about polygamy is overestimation of the seriousness of sexual sin? What if the reason sexual sin is bad is not because it is so bad inherently, but because it is such a distraction from the real work of the Gospel? And then of course because it hurts tender feelings. Thanks for this thread and discussion. I can’t stand going to Sunday School and ditch out at every opportunity. After all, I’ve heard it all at least twice. I’m afraid I’m starting to cut up a bit more in HPG as well. I think back and forth pushing is essential to life and consciousness. Thanks again for the thread. I lurked for awhile, then joined. Then became absolutely giddy, posting wildly and probably offensively, so I stood down to reflect on my malfeasance. But I still lurk. Nowhere else do I see the kind of discussion of issues that helps me sort things out. Things get honestly discussed and it helps. I got giddy before, because I felt so liberated by the things I saw here that put to rest some of my concerns. I lurk now because I don’t want to post foolishly or offensively. Love the Descartes joke! I found the title of this post intriguing, though it was more about TED Talks than I would have liked and less about the morality of lying. I have some kind of weird aversion to audible electronics media. Strange. But I do like to read and look at the pictures. But what I was thinking about why we lie makes me want to comment. I have thought a lot about lies since I came to this blog, and have wrestled with some new perspectives. I always believed that my core position on lying was “Say the truth and let the chips fall where they may.” But I don’t really believe that totally anymore. Oops got to go!
Thanks for that link. I like Brother Reid much more now than I did before I read the article. This surprised me, and so I made a leap of faith and tried the Wikipedia article on George Soros. I find I like him much better now too. What do you know! This is timely for me and my ward. Just last month one of our Gospel Doctrine teachers had a meltdown in class. He had read the essays, and went on in class about how we had been lied to and how the beliefs he had taught on his mission were lies and how he could not go on. We had a couple of discussions about it in Bishopric meetings, and finally last Sunday it came up in Ward council, brought up by the Sunday school president no less, who hadn’t been there and couldn’t seem to get the full story. We were well enlightened (I had also not been in the class) and the council discussed what to do. Without saying where I got my ideas, I shared some of the perspectives in this post, and I think for the most part people resonated with the idea, “He’s heard all the arguments, what he needs now is for everyone to just be his friend”. I hope so. I really like his thoughtful approach to leading the class discussions and discussing things in general, and I don’t want him to be gone too long. His wife and children are still bravely coming to meetings. The Church had scouts before the Boy Scouts. They were organized so that the saints never again would be subject to the kind of ignorance that resulted in death and so much suffering on the trail west, for example, the Martin and Willie handcart companies. When they heard about Baden-Powell Boy Scouts, the Leadership sent people to look into it, and they accepted it for the Church. So, we’ve done it our own way before. That being said, I think there is much to be gained by staying in the Boy Scouts, and I hope we will find a way to stay and share.
