Disciplinary council for the founder of the Ordain Women movement in the LDS church

[RebeccaJ]

An example on how our thinking differs. Say we discovered another planet tomorrow. It is full of life, plants and animals, and it also has a species that is comparable to us in every way. All the life on the planet has gone through a distinct evolutionary process from ours, and so genetically and on a molecular level it looks very different, but it functions much like life does here.

If we landed there and wished to spread Catholicism, on my view it would be perfectly acceptable to ordain the intelligent aliens to the priesthood. We could designate them as human based on their mental and spiritual characteristics. It would be perfectly acceptable for them to consecrate their own equivalent of bread, which looks and tastes a lot like ours (except it is green and made from the BulaBula plant), into the body and blood of Jesus. It would be perfectly acceptable to make images of Jesus that looked like this species does.

The way the Church currently reasons about this, they could not ordain the aliens. The aliens could not consecrate their own bread or wine. We would have to introduce our kind of grains to their alien environment (and hope they didn’t become poisoned by eating it), and our kind of grapes, and all priests and bishops would have to be biological humans. I don’t think our evangelization of the aliens would be very successful that way

I don’t think this is a valid argument. It’s a conspiracy theory, at best. Like arguing aliens exist because you believe they should.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Over the weekend, the Office of the First Presidency released a statement in response to the Ordain Women movement.

lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

One of the statements that stuck out to me was “the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women.”

That statement is only true when a woman is married to an LDS priesthood holder or living at home with her LDS priesthood holder father.

From the age of 18 until I married at 30, I lived either alone or with other women (except for a few summers when I lived with my parents). My access to the LDS priesthood was, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.

I nary had a home teacher grace my home with his presence. For a few years, I attended a normal family ward before attending the YSA ward. It took me quite a while to even find out who the High Priest Group leader was and then he ignored my request for home teachers who actually home taught. I then went to the Elders Quorom President. He refused to help because I was single. Even the bishop refused to help me with providing good home teachers so I could have “access” to the LDS priesthood in my home. None of the priesthood “leaders” “called by God” cared about a young single woman and her need for “access” to the LDS priesthood.

The YSA ward wasn’t much better although I at least had assigned home teachers and I knew who they were. I only ever had one home teacher during my entire time in the LDS church who actually visited somewhat regularly but that assignment didn’t last very long.

LDS leadership talk a good game about men and women having “equal access” to the LDS priesthood, but it rarely works out that way. The only people in the LDS church who have real “access” to the LDS priesthood are men, women married to LDS priesthood holders and their children.

Yes, it the prime reason the LDS Church teaches that a woman should marry a worthy Mormon man.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t mock people.

I disagree. I have read your posts. But it does not bother me. Like I said…it is fun.

Nor do I need to use other forms of violent speech to try to make others feel bad, because I feel no inner insecurity where I need to cling to and protect beliefs that make me feel secure.

Hmmm…if that were true, you would not have mentioned it…since no one else has.

In discussions like this, anger typically arises in those who cling to beliefs that provide them with a mental sense of security, not in doubters who have learned to live with not knowing everything.

Really? So, if you bad-mouth my mother, and I get angry, it is because I cling to a belief that I love my mother? No. You define what you want to define in the way YOU choose to define it in an effort to justify YOUR feelings and actions. The definitions and reasoning are wrong, but I understand your need to define things the way you have.

It is anger, and its cousin, malice, that gives rise to the kind of sarcasm and mockery people typically engage in, in forums. I am not angry with you, and I have no wish to harm you.

I am always suspicious of people who deny things that have never been alleged. Usually, it means they feel what they deny. Regardless, I could care less if you are angry or wish to harm me. It does not affect me at all, either way. I simply said your efforts are make me smile.

I simply disagree with some of your views.

Really? Which ones?

That doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person or have inferior intelligence.

That is because I am not, and I do not

.

 

[anon99031074]

You present straw man arguments.

Ok. Since you don’t explain what those straw-man arguments are, there is little more for me to say.

I don’t think this is a valid argument. It’s a conspiracy theory, at best. Like arguing aliens exist because you believe they should.

I am not arguing that aliens exist. It was an attempt to explain the differences in our thinking by means of an example.

I disagree. I have read your posts. But it does not bother me. Like I said…it is fun.

You’d need to have special insight into my mind to know that I had the intent of attacking, or ridiculing people with contempt or derision, which is what the term means. I have told you this is not so. But since you think I am someone who enjoys mocking people, I am probably also a liar.

Hmmm…if that were true, you would not have mentioned it…since no one else has.

I take speech very seriously. If people do mock others, it is for an emotional reason like that.

Really? So, if you bad-mouth my mother, and I get angry, it is because I cling to a belief that I love my mother? No. You define what you want to define in the way YOU choose to define it in an effort to justify YOUR feelings and actions. The definitions and reasoning are wrong, but I understand your need to define things the way you have.

It was not meant as a universal definition of why people get angry in discussions. It is a common reason for anger, when it comes to religious discussions. People get furious because they subconsciously feel their whole worldview is threatened. Cognitive dissonance causes anger.

If someone bad-mouthed your mother, it would probably be just to get to you because you are emotionally attached to her. If you reacted with anger, you would be falling into the trap that was set for you. If the person was spreading untrue accusations, you could correct them. If the mocker was engaged in name calling, you could simply ignore it. While mockery is a form of violence, it can only harm a mind that is susceptible to it. And anger has no benefits. It is like clinging to a piece of burning coal in your hand, with the intention of throwing it at someone else. It is harmful to the one who is angry. You could respond to the bad-mouthing out of love and compassion for your mother and not out of anger directed towards the person bad-mouthing her. You cannot simultaneously harbor feelings of love for your mother and anger/hatred towards another human being in your mind. The two feelings are mutually exclusive.

I am always suspicious of people who deny things that have never been alleged. Usually, it means they feel what they deny. Regardless, I could care less if you are angry or wish to harm me. It does not affect me at all, either way. I simply said your efforts are make me smile.

It has been alleged, that is the whole point. Mockery is an attempt at doing harm, it comes from an angry and delusional mind which overemphasizes the perceived negative qualities in another person to the point where the clouded mind sees only or predominately negative aspects. Since I am not angry with you, I feel no need to mock you, that was my point.

Anyway, I think we have covered most of the pro/con arguments in this discussion, and so I will withdraw from it.

 

[TexanKnight]

You’d need to have special insight into my mind to know that I had the intent of attacking, or ridiculing people with contempt or derision, which is what the term means. I have told you this is not so. But since you think I am someone who enjoys mocking people, I am probably also a liar.

Well, you know you better than we know you. Your admission is accepted.

I take speech very seriously. If people do mock others, it is for an emotional reason like that.

No…maybe for YOU it is for a reason like that. I, too, take speech very seriously. The difference between us is that I do not go to the boards of other religions to tell them how wrong they are. I am a Catholic at a Catholic website. So, your actions speak for themselves.

It was not meant as a universal definition of why people get angry in discussions. It is a common reason for anger, when it comes to religious discussions. People get furious because they subconsciously feel their whole worldview is threatened. Cognitive dissonance causes anger.

Again, that is your view…as is the view that you have angered anyone. You have not provided anything other than humor…and humor does not anger anyone…or at least it shouldn’t.

If someone bad-mouthed your mother, it would probably be just to get to you because you are emotionally attached to her.

Perhaps. But you, as I suspected you would, missed the point.

If you reacted with anger, you would be falling into the trap that was set for you.

lol…OH NO!..Not the trap! lol

And anger has no benefits.

yet, oddly enough, the only person who has spoken of anger is you…hmmmmm

It has been alleged, that is the whole point. Mockery is an attempt at doing harm, it comes from an angry and delusional mind which overemphasizes the perceived negative qualities in another person to the point where the clouded mind sees only or predominately negative aspects.

I am sure that, in your case, your observations are accurate. That would explain why you mock.

Anyway, I think we have covered most of the pro/con arguments in this discussion, and so I will withdraw from it.

I do not blame you. I apologize for angering you. My only point was that watching your attempts to mock are humorous. The way you try using poor comparisons and how you self-define things is amusing. I am sorry I angered you. It was not my intent.

 

[anon99031074]

The difference between us is that I do not go to the boards of other religions to tell them how wrong they are.

I am a baptized, confirmed and active member of the CC. The mere fact that I have doubts, and I have a lot of them, does not mean I belong to another religion. Furthermore, I don’t think I have done anything to deserve your sarcasm, meanness and mockery. I have tried to remain polite, but you just keep adding more venom to every post you write. So have a nice life. I will not waste as much as a sentence on you again.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok. Since you don’t explain what those straw-man arguments are, there is little more for me to say.

I didn’t say essence or substance, I said element, as in, something characteristically important. So, you replied to something I never said, or ascribe to when you said:

Thinking that there are separate female vs. male elements in humans is a completely arbitrary choice. One might just as well say there is an essential difference between a Jewish male and a Caucasian male, as racists do, and argue that Jesus only allowed the ordination of the Jewish “element” and not the Caucasian.

Obviously a Jewish priest must be Jewish, and a Catholic priest must be Catholic.

And then this, which is totally out of nowhere and has nothing to do with Catholic teaching or my own personal belief.

The whole essentialist thinking has proved to be very harmful. It is what enables dehumanization, where one thinks that there are animals which look human in every way, but lacks the inner human essence of what makes someone human, and so it is ok to enslave or kill these “humanoids” because that is the way we treat animals. Such reasoning has always been used by slavers (blacks didn’t have “souls”, so they were not fully human, it was argued), people who commit genocide (The Holocaust, Rwanda), etc. It is also argued by those who defend abortion. The fetus isn’t really human or a person. What pro-lifers actually do is challenge this idea and ask exactly WHAT this human/person essence is that the fetus lacks. No matter what it is said to be (personality, reason, intelligence, awareness, etc…) the pro-lifer can point to people we do recognize as humans/persons with rights, who lack the same thing, permanently or temporally.

In summary, my viewpoint is that men and women are not different sacramental elements, since there is no such thing as a male or female element/essence. Hence the CC is authorized by Jesus to ordain women, because he ordained humans and women are humans. The one important consideration is whether someone can function as a priest, and there is no defect in all women that makes all women unsuitable to serve others in this capacity.

I never argued there is a male/female essence. I said, a male priest is an important element, as in, characteristic to, the Sacraments. I think it obvious there is a difference between male and female. Some people in the world think a man can be a woman or a wife a husband, or a woman can be a Catholic priest. I don’t have this confusion. Just as I understand a marriage requires the characteristic element of one man and one woman, so I understand ordination requires the characteristic element of being male. I already posted the theological reasons that support my view.

You support your view with societal views that there is nothing distinct between male and female, other than sexual organs. Being distinct, does not imply inferiority. Only in your own mind is this so.

Your continuous strawman is that this is degrading to women, or implying there is something wrong with women. Which is why I said, it is offensive that you keep insisting that I should be offended because YOUR view is Catholic women are inferior. That view is not the Catholic Church’s or mine. So when are you going to stop telling me that I am inferior?

I am not arguing that aliens exist. It was an attempt to explain the differences in our thinking by means of an example.

While I enjoy fantasy and science fiction, I don’t see them as having anything to do with the Catholic Church.

Jesus revealed Himself to humankind. Speculations on alien races existing and requiring salvation is puerile, IMO.

Race is an artificial construct of society, which appeared circa the 17th century. Whether one is male or female is a reality, not a construct.

 

[TexanKnight]

I am a baptized, confirmed and active member of the CC. The mere fact that I have doubts, and I have a lot of them, does not mean I belong to another religion. Furthermore, I don’t think I have done anything to deserve your sarcasm, meanness and mockery. I have tried to remain polite, but you just keep adding more venom to every post you write. So have a nice life. I will not waste as much as a sentence on you again.

lol. I have not been rude or mocking to you. You went as far, early on, basically mocking me for still believing in God.

Its cool. I was not offended. I enjoyed watching your yoga in your efforts to demean belief.

I do not blame you for your retreat now. I would, too, if I were you.

I, however, will keep posting when I see a need to, once again, correct you.