posted
Anne Kate, in terms where to possibly discuss it, I'd say not in formal church meetings, even the ones during the week - that's really not their purpose. If you want to talk to a leader, then then in an individual interview. If you want to talk to the other women, how about a visiting teaching visit?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka's suggestion that I can't understand because I'm not endowed sort of struck me the same way (as a no-win situation). I'm not yet endowed in part because of these lingering feelings that something isn't entirely right here. So it's sort of a Catch-22.
[ August 02, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, that's a good idea. Yet that limits the discussion to five of us. Is there no appropriate place or time you can suggest where I can talk to the whole Relief Society? Have a discussion and see what everyone thinks?
[ August 02, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak, Regarding both the role of blacks in the LDS church historically and the present question of role of gays in all Christian churchs, I'd like to bring up what I think it one of clearest messages Jesus had in the Bible.
He was asked, what was the most important commandment and replied "Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind." and there is a second like unto the first "Love your neighbor as yourself." Later on, Paul confirmed this messages saying that anyone who truely loves his fellow man and acts out of this love is incapable of sinning.
For me, this love is one of the clearest themes in the New Testament. It's also the one thing conspicously absent from most Christianity.
The role of blacks or of gays can only be decided in a Christian manner if you truely love them, if you regard them as your neighbors, your sisters and brother, or, as Jesus said, as Christ himself. In my experience, your church and every Christian church fails in this, the greatest of cmmmandments. At the very least, they passively support hatred and bigotry by alligning themselves with haters and bigots and not speaking out against this hatred and bigotry, in not making their central message one of love. The framing of the issue on most religious lips is defense of marriage. Defense is not something you got from Jesus, at least not the Jesus in the Bibles I've read.
Hatred and bigorty don't attach to specific stands on things. Neither does love. They are ways of coming to these stands and of holding them. I'm sure that, for example, it is possible, even if hard, to truely love a gay person and yet tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. However, I don't think many Christians meet that standard. I don't even think many Christians admit that that's the standard that they should be aiming for.
Now, I'm not a Christian myself, but I was when I formed those ideas about what it meant to be a Christian. In fact, I use them as the central theme of my life now, although I've decided that sole belief in Christ is not my path.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hey, welcome to MY life! I've been told on good authority that I'll receive all kinds of proof of God's existence once I believe He exists. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* this is one of the very issues that cause me to, while not exacatly "losing" my faith, morphing it quite drastically.
The fundamentalist protestant community I grew up in couldn't handle intelligent women, unless they chose to be married, and thus fit in the "niche". And while learning theology for its own sake is interesting, for me the true thrill always came from exchanging ideas with others, but women weren't supposed to debate theology with the men. The only exception was if you were a missionary, and even then you were really supposed to be married.
quote:being unmarried and childless is a not a permanent state. The most basic organizational unit is the family, not the individual. The individual, honestly, is worthless unless they are contributing to society. Of course they don't have to be part of a family to contribute. But they shouldn't expect the same privilages as the family.
Gee. So glad to know that I'm worthless. This sort of attitude is exactly why I'm no longer active in the church. Because I have been made to feel very much like a second class citizen because I am not married and do not have children. It's even worse because I am known not to be especially worried about this. I have also been made to understand that my choice of political parties is "wrong", that I am interested in things that are not "appropriate" for a woman (oh, dangerous things like science and history). That because I am not married and a mother than I am somehow "wrong".
I finally came to realize that I am not wrong. I am me.
I'm sorry if this post offends anyone, but it is how I feel.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, ak, sometimes the disconnect isn't churchwide but very specific to your area. I wouldn't know.
Like I said, in my stake, lots of men teach primary. We even have men in nursery. Very often this is a husband/wife team. But I've also been in stakes where no one ever, ever called a man to primary or nursery because it was demeaning.
I've heard the most outrageous things. One of my daughters asked me once why "Only boys will go to school in Heaven"
"Where did you learn that?"
"My primary teacher."
Woah. Unfortunately, we'd just moved to a new branch and this had been a few weeks ago in our old ward.
So yeah, really bad doctrine does get passed around.
Your 'angle of attack' shouldn't be at having women getting the priesthood. But it should be at more openess to equality among the sexes and people being able to do things that are not "typical" for their gender. It should be in debunking some folklorish stuff about how men are superior to women. (There is an awful book written in the 70s called "Women and the Priesthood" The book company stopped printing it, but there is a fringe group that has been photocopying it)
For instance, I do all the 'handyman' work in our house, because I'm better at it than my husband.
But in order to do this, you need to have a deep understanding of not only LDS culture but LDS doctrine. You need to study this out and pray about it yourself. You need to be part of the community and loving the community. Take out your endowments, there is added perspective there that is important.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate, you're right. It is a catch-22 - that in order to understand it, you have to go through the temple.
On the other hand, going through the temple without understanding it and having a testimony first will NOT create a testimony about this principle if it didn't exist before. What it will do is confuse the heck out of you and raise doubts about the temple.
--
*hug* The solution is to pray for a testimony of this principle. Like getting a testimony of the Savior and of the Book of Mormon and the gospel in the first place, the only way to know that it is of the Lord is to have it confirmed by the Holy Ghost. I think that's why all the rationalizations never worked for me - they could easily come from human agendas. I would pray for experiences - experiences with other women, and experiences with righteous priesthood holders if you want to be specific, and answers to this in general. Read everything that people have had to say that's out there, carefully distinguishing between doctrine and church members' opinions, and then for a testimony of the individual principle itself.
It's okay to wonder; it's okay to want a testimony for yourself. Brigham Young would be so proud. If you're open to whatever answer is given, I promise the Lord will answer your prayers for a testimony of this.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gee. So glad to know that I'm worthless. This sort of attitude is exactly why I'm no longer active in the church. Because I have been made to feel very much like a second class citizen because I am not married and do not have children. It's even worse because I am known not to be especially worried about this. I have also been made to understand that my choice of political parties is "wrong", that I am interested in things that are not "appropriate" for a woman (oh, dangerous things like science and history). That because I am not married and a mother than I am somehow "wrong".
I finally came to realize that I am not wrong. I am me.
LMA, I agree with you. No, you're not worthless at all. I'm honestly appalled that that was said.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jutsa, you've not been here long enough to know that thread titles are just starting points? That we take off in any direction of interest to those posting at the time? Feel free to bring it back to Islam, or else to take it in any other direction that's relevant to you.
No, that's okay. It is interesting to hear what others of different backgrounds have to say on the matter. If I see something I can relate to, I might jump in.
quote:I see what you mean about being dismissed as irrelevant for being an outsider. That sucked that I did that. I'm sorry.
It's not your fault. This is the way things are. It's the way things are whenever religion is discussed, no matter what the religion. I just don't want to get the thread or my posts deleted for coming from an outside position about things which may or may not be allowed to be discussed here. Best to err on the side of caution, in this case. I don't hold you accountable to that.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I said an individual was worthless unless they were contributing to society. I didn't say that this had to involve being married. There are many different ways to contribute. A youth should be preparing by educating themselves. A severely disabled person may contribute simply by giving others the opportunity to serve and learn.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
God loves every single individual deeply, wonderfully, for exactly who they are.
Society is not God. Society is not anything that loves anything. It is a human construct that either works or doesn't. It will fail if there aren't enough individuals to support it. When a society fails, individuals suffer. An individual who doesn't help society in some manner is actually contributing to its failure, and so to the suffering of many individuals.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your 'angle of attack' shouldn't be at having women getting the priesthood.
Amka, I'm not even asking that. <laughs> I haven't gotten that specific. I'm just asking if we need to take a hard look at ourselves in the light of what seems so very obvious when we look at other faiths, and ask if women's roles in our church are what they are in heaven with God. Is there room for us to become more Christlike in this area, and if so, is there anything appropriate for members to do to ready the church for acceptance of new revelation, should it come, or to create an atmosphere in which the church leadership will seek new revelation on these topics?
I'm seeking the right path as a faithful Latter Day Saint in addressing these issues.
[ August 02, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
littlemissattitude, I don't see you as worthless. Far from it. Please come join my ward.
About a month after I joined the church I had this feeling one day that I had been sent there to do something to change things in the church. I felt really dismayed. Because I had thought that the church was my home, that I was coming home, you know, where I belonged. And I've had so many battlegrounds. My whole life sometimes seems as though it's a battleground. I didn't think that was going to be how it was in the church. I'm afraid I shrank from the thought that God wanted me to do something I really didn't want to have to do.
But then the coolest thing happened. I was called to be the leader of 10-11 year old girls' achievement day group. It was as though where I had thought to see a roadblock, instead there was a red carpet laid. Then I knew that I should trust that it really was all in hand. That whatever happened would be right. That I was being well looked-after.
I try to keep that feeling. I do believe that I'm in the right place. littlemissattitude, I wonder if people like us are here to do something really important in the Lord's church.
[ August 02, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the church doesn't represent "society." - that's a secular view.
When the church makes up over three-fourths of the population, it does represent society. To say otherwise would be like saying that the most popular Democrat or Republican views don't represent their respective parties.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, the guiding light for church policies is not and should not be sociological theories concerning Society.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why do most church policies, regardless of what church we discuss, correlate directly with the social climate of the time? They seem inextricably linked.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did get a little out of the bounds of our discussion, I will admit.
So I will keep it to just the church. In order to fulfill our full potential (we aren't just talking about on earth) we need to get married. Not all of us will get married in this life, but because this is God's law, we must organize the church around marriage and families, not around individuals. The church does teach that there is much that we can do as individuals, but that our highest calling is as husband and wife/ as parents. Within that, we each have very specific roles that I already covered.
ak - If God has a mission for you within the church, then trust God, embrace the church fully, and God will show you the path. It may not be exactly what you think it is, or it may not play out exactly as you envisioned. The church is not perfect, and never really will be as long as it exists within the mortal sphere. But God is perfect and knows what is needed.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if I trust God, embrace the church fully, and this is the path that He seems to be showing me? To ask permission to ask questions and discuss things. To ask if we need to look harder.
I bring this stuff up on hatack first because you guys are my ward-of-the-heart.
[ August 02, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, you subtly changed my question. Did you notice?
We know that we are taught little by little, only as much as we are ready for. We know there is room for us to grow and learn to be more Christlike, as individuals, and as a church.
My question is this. Is there anything that's appropriate (and requisite) for us as members to do to help speed up this process, either by preparing ourselves and our wards to receive new revelation (should it come) or by creating a climate in which the leadership will feel urged to seek new revelation on any given subject?
Do you all feel that the answer to both of these questions is "no"?
[ August 02, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate, I do not think that it is right for you to be seeking change for the church as a whole, and not during church meetings. That's really not their purpose. If there is a specific situation, then defnitely talk to (stake, ward) leaders to make sure they are aware of it.
posted
Tom, that's where faith comes in. Seriously. Peter stepped out of the boat and did fine until he started thinking "What if the water can't hold me up?"
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jamie has told us about the doctrine of dissent in the Catholic Church. I was really interested to hear that.
What I feel isn't dissent. I know that I'm not called to set church doctrine. I know that's the prophet's job. But I do feel called to do something. To foster some sort of discussion of the issues in some way. To make it an item that's under consideration. Something that we are soul-searching about. Is that feeling just wrong?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there's anyone who was a member before blacks were given the priesthood, how did you feel about the situation at the time?
I've been told that people prayed for new revelation to come on that subject. I suppose that means out loud in church prayers.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
For items under consideration, then I'd write and express my concerns directly to those charged with stewardship over those decisions. One reason that Enrichment isn't an appropriate place for those discussions is because it doesn't matter so much what the collective conclusion is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do I address these things? Private prayer only? Private and public prayer? Is it wrong to ever bring up anything which could potentially be divisive? Where is it appropriate to do so? What role does the membership play in helping to ready the church as a whole to receive new revelation, or in lobbying the leadership to seek new revelation on various moral questions?
ak, my advice to you is to ask members of the church in leadership positions. It is their business to think, study, and seek personal revelation on these sorts of things. Some of them won't have helpful answers at all. But keep asking. You many find someone who is spiritually prepared to give you the answer that you are seeking for.
I myself have intense questions, not so much about this, as about something else. But I don't feel an urgent need for an answer, so I am content to continue seeking the knowledge on the Lord's timetable. Your question is a bit more pertinent to you right now, especially if it holds you back from endowment. I would say seek the answer to your question with passion and dilligence. I hope you find your answer.
As for me coming up with an answer to your question, let me ramble a bit. I have never had difficulty with the idea of gender roles. But in my mind those gender roles shouldn't be too tight or restrictive either. I look at it more as the Platonic ideal. Variation is just fine, variation on a theme. I think there is definitely some overlap between the roles of each gender. As to what might be too far outside that sphere, I am not one to say.
But there are certain things that we have been taught are not a part of God's plan for us. One, men are priesthood holders. Two, same-sex sexual relations are never appropriate. This is the doctrine of the church as I understand it, and beyond that, are part of God's design and therefore not subject to change. Could I be wrong on this? Yeah, I could be. But it is my current belief/understanding of how things are.
Do women serve a purpose to God outside of making and raising babies? Everything I have seen gives a resounding "yes". Though it is true that when in the depths of caring for little children (and even older ones) women don't have *time* for much else. So if God wants willing women to participate in this business of motherhood, it is not that he doesn't want them doing anything else, it is more that what they are doing is so important that it must come first.
I know of women who hate the idea of motherhood. They have no "instinct" for it, no desire for it at all. One in particular I am thinking of is accomplishing great things right now. What she is doing matters. But I think the point is that in God's eyes men can do those "other things" pretty well too and that men cannot take the place of women as mothers.
Do I think that God never intended some women to become mothers in this life? Yeah, I think that is entirely possible. Do they feel out of place in the LDS church? Yeah, I bet they do at least some of the time. There is so much importance placed on motherhood that those not desiring or able to be mothers feel like second class citizens.
Is that fair? Well, I don't think anyone ought to feel less loved or less important in God's kingdom. But what if what those mothers are doing really *is* more important than what anyone else is doing? What if we just can't see that with our limited POV? Those women who desire motherhood and haven't had the opportunity will get that opportunity. Motherhood is an eternal principle. Those who don't desire it now and never will may not realize how much they are missing out on. But they will be happy doing what makes them happy. Even if they miss out "eternally" on motherhood, if they never wanted it to begin with, it wouldn't have made them happy.
I haven't really addressed your question about priesthood. It does seem that the way the church is set up that God intends for men to learn how to be leaders and it is rare (if it happens at all) that women are put in positions of leadership over men.
Patriarchal order is church doctrine. For people like me that have no desire for leadership, that doesn't particularly bother me. Put me in the background and put me to work. I will be happy as long as I can influence people. I don't mind being in the background, I only mind being "impotent" as it were, not able to effect the world around me.
But for those who do desire it or who are bothered by a sense of "inequality", it is a problem. According to earthly laws and existance, the people who are in power are above others. There is inequality. But if leadership works the way God intends, is it inequality? I am not convinced that it is. In God's pattern, the highest leader is the servant of all. Those on the lowest rung are the ones being served the most, the ones doing the least serving. Whenever there is "exploiting" going on, it has ceased to be in alignment with God's plans. But you already know this.
I would suggest that if this is the crux of what bothers you, consider that you may not understand God's perspective on leadership, that men exclusively having priesthood and therefore leadership does not make them better and does not make men and women unequal. That it doesn't even make women less potent than men. Now this answer ain't gonna fly for any non-believer, because the only reality they believe in is this mortal existance and the rules that work within it.
These are some of my ramblings. Take them for what you will. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now this answer ain't gonna fly for any non-believer, because the only reality they believe in is this mortal existance and the rules that work within it.
Well said and it more or less sums up any arguments I had perfectly.
Haven't you and I been on this merry-go-round before?
quote:Now this answer ain't gonna fly for any non-believer, because the only reality they believe in is this mortal existance and the rules that work within it.
See, that's just not true, at least not for me. I'm completely willing to accept that there are rules outside the mundane. However, there's a huge difference between accepting that these rules exist and accepting that their nature contradicts the rules of this existence. It's like I was saying before, that if something works and comes out good, than I find it difficult to believe that we should prefer something that doesn't work and comes out bad.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm just asking if we need to take a hard look at ourselves in the light of what seems so very obvious when we look at other faiths, and ask if women's roles in our church are what they are in heaven with God. Is there room for us to become more Christlike in this area, and if so, is there anything appropriate for members to do to ready the church for acceptance of new revelation, should it come, or to create an atmosphere in which the church leadership will seek new revelation on these topics?
ak, I think so. I think there will always be the tempation for men to assume they are superior to women in some way and women to feel inferior in some way because of the priesthood being exculsively held by men. I think this is human nature and needs to constantly be corrected. It seems to me that our highest leaders are doing everything they know how to do to keep things going in the right direction. They listen to people like you. Your feelings and observations do matter.
I have heard the leaders of the church take specific letters written by women who have been so hurt by inequality and use them to rebuke the men of the church. We all try to interpret God's will through our own perspective, and that will always foul it up. That is why we need to keep going back to God for instruction. Some people need to be chastised and corrected because they are *hurting people*. They are *destroying people*. That is not right.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But gender roles don't make any sense... Not all women are nurturing or spiritual, just as not all men are authoritarian or whatever... People are all different, all individuals. Instead of getting people who act like their individual nature with strict sex roles you get people pretending to be what they are not... Women taking themselves down a notch like tall people slouching when they walk, men who aren't stereotypically tough over acting the part. To me, this is what causes a lot of strain on some heterosexual relationships. This idea of you have to fit into this mold in order to be a man or a woman... There's a lot of people who blow this sort of theory out of the water... Who just don't fit into that sort of mold... Perhaps that says something...
Some, not all Muslim religions practice infibrulation on young girls. Is it right for an outsider, a foreigner or a non-Muslim to criticise this practice even if it is devastating for the child involved? Sometimes it's hard for people in the system to see anything wrong with the system. Sometimes it's hard for people outside the system to understand things completely. Is having to wear a Burka (sp) that oppressive? Or is it just a kneejerk western reaction like a kneejerk atheist reaction?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem for me, as the unbeliever, I don't know which theory of the supernatural to subscribe to. It seems reasonable to me that the higher powers work more or less the way the mortal world functions. I certainly haven't seen any indication that it shouldn't.
Of course, as Bev has pointed out, it may simply be I am not capable of perceiving or understanding this information. The same reason I can't see tachyons - it's just not available to me. It's possible God said, "just because." At some point, He (provided he exists, usual disclaimers) had to make some choices in making reality. Why is the sky blue? Why do we breathe oxygen?
And it alludes to why I dislike faith - with no rational basis or demonstratable proof, people expect me to bend knee (thanks Tom) to a belief system that I can't support or endorse. And this applies to just about every religion going.
And the more militant ones will cheerfully string me up, tie me to a stake or seek to purge the pagan, heretic or infidel.
-Trevor
Edit: Continuing my paragraph - as I can see no proof of gods, angels, demons or devils, it is difficult for me to believe in them.
And most proof of faith is dependent upon accepting certain principles, tenets or articles of faith first which tends to be fairly circular. If not a tad delusional - sorry, I can't think of a better word off-hand.
posted
My two cents from outside the church. Just from my own experience.
Some ten years ago, I did research on the question why so few women had leadership positions within the Dutch (mental) health sector. We could come to only one conclusion, which is that most women do not want to have such a position. I am not quite sure this is all cultural. I discovered for my own person it's definitely partly in my genes. I was not raised by a conventional mother, I was not raised with a religion, my best friend was my brother, I studied economics and was the only girl, I always worked in a man's world. My job was to bring the money in and I had my children raised by their fathers. And now I finally realise that I have never been (able to be) a women in my life until some years ago. It took some time, but man am I happy to be a housewife! I am not talking about the work of a housewife, but the role she has. Being the supporting centre of the household for husband and children, neighbours and family. In the past I never had the time and energy for that. I lived like a man.
So maybe rules to separate women from man for some occasions or rules as to which roles are appropriate for men and which for women are a protection of some sort. A protection against not being able to develop the full male or female potential.
I am not sure about this. Maybe we should all develop both sides in ourselves. I just don't know. I just feel more happy doing things that are more natural to me. Natural as a woman. But maybe this is all because trying to live like a man is a constant battlefield, and playing the role society expects you to play as a women does not meet any resistance, so that's why I am feeling better.
So, no answers from me. Just some thoughts.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, the believer believes that their own perspective is flawed and trusts that God perceives all things as they truly are. Therefore a believer will trust those perspectives of God that appear to contradict what they have observed because they believe those observations are incomplete. Like the blind man trying to describe the elephant thingy.
That is a pretty big leap of faith, I know. Especially when a person has to believe that those revelations of God came *through* human beings (prophets).
If that faith is truly blind, then I agree with the non-believer thinking it is "scary". That faith needs to be based on the individual's own experiences. While these experiences may be "empirical" to the individual, they are not "empirical" to others. You can't say, "Look, when I pray about this thing, I feel God's understanding and intelligence filling my mind!" Even if the listener believed you (and why should they?), they aren't experiencing it. Similar to the parable of the 10 virgins and the lamps, the oil could not be borrowed from another.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn - gender roles don't make sense, but I submit the standard Judeo-Christian morality system is built on arbitrary decisions of right and wrong.
This is right and this is wrong because I (or someone) once decided that it should be and we wrote it down.
Gender roles tend to fall into the same category - the Church believes this to be "right" and has announced it as such.
Disclaimer: I am not Catholic and I am not advocating a woman's place - I'm presenting one argument for it.
quote:This is the doctrine of the church as I understand it, and beyond that, are part of God's design and therefore not subject to change. Could I be wrong on this? Yeah, I could be. But it is my current belief/understanding of how things are.
I find this ability to question, or at least admit that there may be a question,very refreshing, and conspicuously absent from most discussions of religion with the self-proclaimed religious. I realize when I discuss religion with someone that it is very unlikely that either of us will change their opinion. But if the other individual cannot even allow that there might be room for error why have the discussion in the first place.
posted
Ginette, you are fortunate in that you actually desire to live within the gender roles still heavily accpeted by society. Society, for all it's efforts to break out of that, still is kind to those who accept those ancient gender roles. Many women and men have been "pioneers" in creating new understanding: Women engineers. Nurturing stay-at-home Dads.
I do think that it is valuable to flesh out both sides of ourselves. I actually think this is pleasing to God. We all have a masculine and a feminine side, and we should not be too afraid of either.
Synesthesia makes a good point about the many people who do not "fit" the mold. Let me address an LDS point of doctrine that is near and dear to my heart.
quote:Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-30 29 Man was also in the beginning• with God. Intelligence, or the light of dtruth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere• in which God has placed it, to act• for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
We believe that while we are God's children and creations, that there is a spark within us, our "intelligence" for lack of a better term, that always existed. This is idea is closely tied with free agency. We all choose our own path, and some of us do not feel particularly inclined to "fit" any mold, even a mold that is a part of God's pattern. But we also believe that God has created a place where all His children can be happy. God invites us to join His pattern, but many will not wish to. But they will still have a place.
Now I realize that this still puts a sense of "inequality" into things by saying that one way is innately "better" than another. I believe that God has a certain pattern and we are free to enter it or not. I also believe that those who do will receive the greatest of God's blessings since His blessings are contingient on obedience to His laws (according to LDS doctrine, and this certainly differs from most Christian doctrine). Perhaps those who choose not to enter into this "order" or "pattern" would not have been particularly interested in the associated blessings either.
But then I don't think we as mortals are capable of understanding the nature of these blessings either. I think they are more "natural consequences" than "playing favorites".
(*Note: all of this is according to my personal understanding of LDS doctrine. I do not wish to put it forth as "fact".)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubble - that's why I wuv Bev and Mr. Head is a very lucky guy.
She's devout in her faith but is still willing to accept different points of view and is willing to concede other issues. As long as you're willing to make the same, legitimate concessions.
posted
Rubble, I find that somewhat troubling myself. It is as though someone admitting that their faith is not a perfect knowledge will somehow weaken their faith or their position. I *try* not to have a problem with declaring that my faith is just that: faith. It is a belief strong enough to bring about action in accordance with that belief. It is not blind faith, it is based on my experiences and understanding. But I cannot expect another person to build their faith on my experiences. I can only share a different way of looking at things and ask them to be open to those ideas also.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, The thing I'm talking about is sort of the blind faith thing you referenced. There's scene in the play Galileo where he's trying to convince his detractors to look though his telescope so that they can decide on the evidence whether what he's saying is right or wrong. But they all refuse to.
That's not strong faith. That's weakness. And (and I'm not just talking about religious people here) that seems to me to be the way a lot of people use their faith. There's a way of ordering their experience, of guiding the things that they look at (or through) to bolster their faith. And, when they accidentally come across something that disagrees with their preconceptions, they can feel justified in not thinking about it because "I must be seeing it wrong."
In another context, weak faith people try to directly convince people that they are right, generally by the use of force. Even now, when conversion by the sword is frowned upon and there aren't many primitive cultures to wow with really big buildings, missionaries still orient themselves towards looking for weaknesses or lacks in people. One of the most common questions is "Are you missing a sense of meaning?" Faith in this way is seen as something that needs to be imposed from outside, not something that people will logically come to if they can see correctly.
There have been references to this Catch-22 in this thread. You must believe before you are given reasons to believe. The problem with that is that people hisotrically have supported many systems that work like this, often by killing the people who didn't believe. People in these situations believe because soon they must believe, not because they choose to.
Rather than faith, I prefer to use love as my criteria for judging someone's belief. Hatred and fear are the result of weak faith or of faith in things that I don't want to pattern my life by even if they do exist. And frankly, as I've said, I've yet to come across an organized Christian Church that passes the love test. I've found quite a few Christians that do, but I've found quite a few non-Christians that do also. Of course, from the a priori Christian perspective, these people must be wrong and have opinions of less value that orthodox Christians who hate. In fact, generally, their existence is denied, a la the labelling of Pelagianism heresy. But I can still see them and I find that they work better than many orthodox Christians I know. So the a priori Christian perspective doesn't work for me. I am unwilling to deny my experience of these people are existing and of having opinions of better value than that of hating orthodox Christians.
posted
All I know about LDS I've learned on Hatrack, so take my ignorance for what it is and smack me down when necessary.
I'm intrigued by the concept that it is all right to have gender roles in the religion because it is the family unit that is important to the "church". Now I know that this could never be accepted in the LDS, but logically, how does one deal with the concept that you could have a family unit where the wife was more apt to be called to the "priesthood" and the husband was the better nurturer? If one really believes that everyone should follow their calling, then why do you have to follow only one list of callings depending on if your a man or a woman?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because that's the way it is? Because women who give birth are obviously better suited to it than men.
How did gender roles in society develop? Well before religion, I would guess that as women were necessary to propagate the tribe, they stayed home and safe while the men did the stupid and dangerous stuff.
A man's vital component takes, what - five minutes? Give or take? Whereas the woman needs to be relatively safe for 9 months. Which means she can do safe things like, tidy the cave, pick out curtains, gather roots and herbs if we've figured out how to domesticate crops, but the man is infinitely more expendable.
And in the "modern age", a woman's need to be protected from wild predators and raiding tribes has been greatly diminished, but old habits die hard.
And to be fair, as we develop more complex social lives, trying to juggle a career with a functional family can be hard - even if we assume the modern male knows enough to pitch in with an equal share of the household chores.
I think we're in a growing cycle with the old standards clashing with and being replaced by new standards.
I'm the choir man . I'm fishing for a religions perspective. The "family unit" and working together each with specific roles and responsibilities works, in a way. But in my heart of hearts I see it as a bit of a circular argument. I'm truly interested in hearing explanations; edit: [however, there has already been plenty in the two pages preceding, so I wouldn't be surprised if everone is spent already.]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
