Mormon PR Campaign: Do Good Individuals Equal A Good Church?

[dianaiad]

It is exactly to the point. To repeat your words: “Why is it noble and creative when a man does it *, but somehow distasteful when a woman does?” (emphasis added)

God is neither male or female, neither man nor woman. He is Pure Spirit. *

Still not the point, Jim Dandy. This isn’t about what you (or anybody else) thinks God is. It’s about the difference in perception of who women are. It doesn’t make the tiniest difference whether God is 'pure Spirit" (If He is, why do you refer to Him as “Father?” In fact, that actually makes things worse…) or not.

It’s about the attitudes of the people doing the criticising. In fact, how dismissive is it of womankind to address a Being who YOU think is “pure spirit,’ and thus neither male nor female–but refer to Him as “he?” Why not refer to Him as 'she,” or “it,” if there is no gender involved?

Either way, the point remains; whether God is pure spirit without gender or not, it is still considered a very worthy and honorable thing to spend eternity creating things and people—unless you happen to be a woman, and then such eternal creation is described as being ‘eternally pregnant’ --and is considered to be a bad, salacious thing, not fit for a woman who has any pride to do.

I don’t get it.

 

[dianaiad]

I asked that you provide your source(s) for this quote (from a previous post):

“Actually, there is some controversy over the actual birthdate…there seems to be a six year window. He could have been crucified at any time betweem 30 AD and 36 AD. Just so you know…the last time I looked, someone was making a pretty good claim for Jesus being born in the year 3 AD.”

Jim Dandy

I gave that one…that was Eusebius.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Still not the point, Jim Dandy. This isn’t about what you (or anybody else) thinks God is. It’s about the difference in perception of who women are. It doesn’t make the tiniest difference whether God is 'pure Spirit" (If He is, why do you refer to Him as “Father?” In fact, that actually makes things worse…) or not.

It’s about the attitudes of the people doing the criticising. In fact, how dismissive is it of womankind to address a Being who YOU think is “pure spirit,’ and thus neither male nor female–but refer to Him as “he?” Why not refer to Him as 'she,” or “it,” if there is no gender involved?

This reminds me of the Unitarian Universalists who were teaching me that in order to not offend anyone, I should ask every person I first meet which pronoun they prefer, male or female, regardless of what sex that person actually happens to be.

It really is pointless. As a Catholic Woman, I’m not offended that God is WHO God is, and we use our limited ways of expression in order to speak of HIM.

Jesus certainly was male. I see no reason to be offended by this.

Either way, the point remains; whether God is pure spirit without gender or not, it is still considered a very worthy and honorable thing to spend eternity creating things and people—unless you happen to be a woman, and then such eternal creation is described as being ‘eternally pregnant’ --and is considered to be a bad, salacious thing, not fit for a woman who has any pride to do.

I don’t get it.

ummmm, being pregnant is now something of a goddess nature? …this whole idea really is reaching into the realms of paganism. gods and goddesses who copulate in order to “create”? :nope:

 

[benidict]

Absolutely not, benidict. Resurrection comes to all of us. We believe that ultimate exhaltation is reserved for spouses, though…it’s not that a woman cannot get there without a husband–it’s that neither man NOR woman can get there without each other.

ehrm…no…unless you believe that God’s role as Creater is that of an eternal incubator…

Never mind all that…no. We don’t teach that.

But I have to wonder something—why is it that, when a masculine God is given credit for creating the entire human race, He is given all honor and worship as the creator, but if you let a woman in on it, all of a sudden it’s something shameful, salacious and awful? Not that this actually reflects our beliefs, because it doesn’t…but I am curious about the attitudes of those who have no problems at all worshiping a Being Who eternally creates souls, but when that eternal creator is female, suddenly all it is is 'being an eternal incubater?" Why is it noble and creative when a man does it, but somehow distasteful when a woman does?

Sorry…just went off there for a moment…

And there you go. Think about what you just wrote for a moment.

Well, there’s a place in heaven for you, even in our family/couple oriented theology, benidict–but great googly moogly, sir, I thought you knew better than THIS!!

thank you diana for your clarifications. i wanted to point out some things that are taught about the Mormons from a non Mormon perspective. i have no problem with women being involved in the creation process. if so, i would have a problem with my own mother! thank goodness! the impression is given in non Mormon circles that a womans best destiny is to be eternally pregnant! ugh! but if there is a place in heaven with my Mormon friends, then i am glad for that. as far as the masculenity of God? im not so sure about the gender aspect. it is written in genisis that God created man in his own image, (male and female created he them.) again thank you for your insights. Peace to you and yours

 

[benidict]

Actually, there is some controversy over the actual birthdate…there seems to be a six year window. He could have been crucified at any time betweem 30 AD and 36 AD. Just so you know…the last time I looked, someone was making a pretty good claim for Jesus being born in the year 3 AD. Calendars are a little messed up, y’know.

Well, mostly that is true, however, there was at least one woman, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria l Real de las Huelgas, near Burgos, in Spain, who was given great authority to issue letters of ordination, preside over religious courts, convess her nuns and to preach. I’m not sure that extended to celebrating Mass, however.

id have to agree with you diana. the dates could be off by a few years. i dont understand why this upsets some of my brothers and sisters that this may be the case. it really changes nothing. Peace

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Still not the point, Jim Dandy. This isn’t about what you (or anybody else) thinks God is. It’s about the difference in perception of who women are. It doesn’t make the tiniest difference whether God is 'pure Spirit" (If He is, why do you refer to Him as “Father?” In fact, that actually makes things worse…) or not.

It’s about the attitudes of the people doing the criticising. In fact, how dismissive is it of womankind to address a Being who YOU think is “pure spirit,’ and thus neither male nor female–but refer to Him as “he?” Why not refer to Him as 'she,” or “it,” if there is no gender involved?

Either way, the point remains; whether God is pure spirit without gender or not, it is still considered a very worthy and honorable thing to spend eternity creating things and people—unless you happen to be a woman, and then such eternal creation is described as being ‘eternally pregnant’ --and is considered to be a bad, salacious thing, not fit for a woman who has any pride to do.

I don’t get it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=277115&highlight=god+masculine

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

Re: Why is God referred to as a male?

---

The Church never determined God the Father to be male. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are pure spirit and so do not have biological gender. God the Son, when he incarnated as the man Christ Jesus, became a man while remaining eternally God the Son.

Perhaps what has caused your confusion is that the Church uses masculine terminology to refer to the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is because God has revealed himself to us through Scripture and Tradition primarily in masculine terms. Since he is the instigator, the first cause, the one who initiates salvation, this is entirely appropriate. It is the Church, as the recipient of salvation and the nurturer of God’s children, who is spoken of in feminine terms.

Why such terminology should be considered “an affront to women,” I do not understand.

---

 

[Jim_Dandy]

thank you diana for your clarifications. i wanted to point out some things that are taught about the Mormons from a non Mormon perspective. i have no problem with women being involved in the creation process. if so, i would have a problem with my own mother! thank goodness! the impression is given in non Mormon circles that a womans best destiny is to be eternally pregnant! ugh! but if there is a place in heaven with my Mormon friends, then i am glad for that. as far as the masculenity of God? im not so sure about the gender aspect. it is written in genisis that God created man in his own image, (male and female created he them.) again thank you for your insights. Peace to you and yours

Christianity is a revealed religion. God revealed Himself and His plan for man’s salvation. He did not write it – He revealed it through His Son, Jesus Christ, and from Christ to His chosen Apostles, the leaders and teachers of the Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. God revealed Himself as a Trinity of Persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit – in One God.

‘Man is made in the image and likeness of God’ means that man was created by God a trinity of intellect (mind), will, and Spirit (soul) – not that God is the image of man!

The “image of God” is a theological term, applied only to humans, which reveals the symbolical relation between God and us. The term comes from Genesis 1:27, wherein “God created man in his own image. . .” This does not mean that God is in human form, but rather, that humans are in the image of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature.

It says in the Gospel of John, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:24) Joseph Smith must have skipped that part.

The Bible must be read holistically – all of it – in order to understand it. We must understand what the sacred authors intended to convey when they wrote it. How did the Apostles understand Genesis? St. John the Apostle certainly didn’t believe “God was a man like us.” “Proof-texting” the Scriptures leads to abberant doctrines like the Mormon belief that God is the image of man.

Christian? :nope:

Jim Dandy

 

[JHow]

…Why not refer to Him as 'she," or “it,” if there is no gender involved?

Perceiving pronouns as being “dismissive” of one gender or the other is largely a problem of English, where grammatical gender and natural gender are usually the same (with a few exceptions like ships). The argument doesn’t surface in languages where gender is purely grammatical and pronouns simply agree in gender with the noun they modify.

With regard to the Holy Spirit, we are left with translations, tradition of usage and the fact that limited language is being asked to describe an unlimited God.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Either way, the point remains; whether God is pure spirit without gender or not, it is still considered a very worthy and honorable thing to spend eternity creating things and people—unless you happen to be a woman, and then such eternal creation is described as being ‘eternally pregnant’ --and is considered to be a bad, salacious thing, not fit for a woman who has any pride to do.

I don’t get it.

Women do not “spend eternity creating things and people.” Except in Mormonism.

Christian? :nope:

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Perceiving pronouns as being “dismissive” of one gender or the other is largely a problem of English, where grammatical gender and natural gender are usually the same (with a few exceptions like ships). The argument doesn’t surface in languages where gender is purely grammatical and pronouns simply agree in gender with the noun they modify.

With regard to the Holy Spirit, we are left with translations, tradition of usage and the fact that limited language is being asked to describe an unlimited God.

:clapping:

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

It’s about the attitudes of the people doing the criticising. In fact, how dismissive is it of womankind to address a Being who YOU think is “pure spirit,’ and thus neither male nor female–but refer to Him as “he?” Why not refer to Him as 'she,” or “it,” if there is no gender involved? . . . .

This article on the topic of the male priesthood addresses your question:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a49.htm

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
I asked that you provide your source(s) for this quote (from a previous post):

“Actually, there is some controversy over the actual birthdate…there seems to be a six year window. He could have been crucified at any time betweem 30 AD and 36 AD. Just so you know…the last time I looked, someone was making a pretty good claim for Jesus being born in the year 3 AD.” Jim Dandy

I gave that one…that was Eusebius.

What you gave is this: “Africanus and Eusebius seemed to think He was born in 2 BC.”

I assumed you knew the information required for a citation: Book or other publication; author and translator (if any); publisher; date of publication; page number. Thank you.

Jim Dandy

 

[JeanMichel]

Friends, the topic of this thread is “Do Good Individuals Equal A Good Church?” Everything being discussed now has nothing to do with the topic. Can we refocus or start a new thread?

 

[dianaiad]

thank you diana for your clarifications. i wanted to point out some things that are taught about the Mormons from a non Mormon perspective. i have no problem with women being involved in the creation process. if so, i would have a problem with my own mother! thank goodness! the impression is given in non Mormon circles that a womans best destiny is to be eternally pregnant! ugh! but if there is a place in heaven with my Mormon friends, then i am glad for that. as far as the masculenity of God? im not so sure about the gender aspect. it is written in genisis that God created man in his own image, (male and female created he them.) again thank you for your insights. Peace to you and yours

I know, benedict, and thank you for your patience with my ‘rant.’—which wasn’t a comment really on the disparate doctrines, but about the mindset–which you have actually repeated here, in a way.

Think of it this way:

What is happening when a woman is pregnant?

                she is physically creating life, or at least the mortal body in which an immortal spirit resides, right? She is, in fact, as close to a creator on this planet as mortal humans can come, all things considered.

If this is so, why would the idea that women would be ‘eternally pregnant’ be a disturbing one? Why is it considered to be something demeaning or opressive?..because when the anti’s say that, this is precisely the connotation they give the idea; to be ‘eternally pregnant’ is presented as something —not to be desired; oppressive; of lesser value. Why?

Perhaps, because if they actually said “Mormons think that an exhalted couple would spend eternity creating their own spririt children just as their Father in Heaven has,” the "ick’ factor is suddenly gone?

Bugs me.

As well it’s illogical as all get out, even if the idea were entirely reflective of LDS thought, (and it isn’t, but let’s go with the idea just for kicks and giggles) people who make this accusation aren’t really doing a lot of critical thinking. Remember, We believe that God created us as spirits before we were physically born to mortal mothers here on earth. In fact, the only physical bodies that He created directly (whether ‘from the dust’ in an instant or through evolutionary processes) were those of our first parents, Adam and Eve. They and their descendents have been happily taking over the job of forming mortal bodies ever since.

So…we beleive that eventually we will all be ressurected and have very physical bodies of flesh and bone; very different from the spirits that God created for us–so.

Just exactly how are these fully physical resurrected women supposed to be PREGNANT with beings of pure spirit, anyway?

sheesh.

 

[dianaiad]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=277115&highlight=god+masculine

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

Re: Why is God referred to as a male?

---

The Church never determined God the Father to be male. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are pure spirit and so do not have biological gender. God the Son, when he incarnated as the man Christ Jesus, became a man while remaining eternally God the Son.

Perhaps what has caused your confusion is that the Church uses masculine terminology to refer to the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is because God has revealed himself to us through Scripture and Tradition primarily in masculine terms. Since he is the instigator, the first cause, the one who initiates salvation, this is entirely appropriate. It is the Church, as the recipient of salvation and the nurturer of God’s children, who is spoken of in feminine terms.

Why such terminology should be considered “an affront to women,” I do not understand.

---

I wasn’t actually saying that referring to God as “masculine” is an affront to women. I can’t, can I, when I believe that He actually IS very much a masculine Being. The problem I was having was this attitude that referring to a woman participating in the creation of spirit children (which is considered a worthy and worshipful thing in God or indeed any male) is, when applied to a woman, presented as an insulting 'eternally pregnant." In a way, isn’t God 'eternally pregnant," in that He is eternally creating?

So how is it that, when the idea of creation is applied to God the Father, it is considered a magnificent an good thing, but when applied to a woman, it is presented as a dismissive insult?

My point is that this idea says a great deal more about the attitudes of those who say it than about the beliefs of those of whom it is said.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

the impression is given in non Mormon circles that a womans best destiny is to be eternally pregnant! ugh!

 

[dianaiad]

Perceiving pronouns as being “dismissive” of one gender or the other is largely a problem of English, where grammatical gender and natural gender are usually the same (with a few exceptions like ships). The argument doesn’t surface in languages where gender is purely grammatical and pronouns simply agree in gender with the noun they modify.

With regard to the Holy Spirit, we are left with translations, tradition of usage and the fact that limited language is being asked to describe an unlimited God.

While this is true, we are still dealing with the dismissive attitudes of those who use English…and decide that people will react negatively to 'Mormons believe that women will be eternally pregnant." …and be right about those reactions. A little deeper thought about what pregnancy actually IS would be a pretty good idea for those folks.

 

[dianaiad]

Women do not “spend eternity creating things and people.” Except in Mormonism.

Christian? :nope:

Dandy, if I used your definition of “Christian,” then I would be insisting that I am the Christian and you…aren’t.

Good thing I don’t use your definition, isn’t it?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I wasn’t actually saying that referring to God as “masculine” is an affront to women. I can’t, can I, when I believe that He actually IS very much a masculine Being. The problem I was having was this attitude that referring to a woman participating in the creation of spirit children (which is considered a worthy and worshipful thing in God or indeed any male) is, when applied to a woman, presented as an insulting 'eternally pregnant." In a way, isn’t God 'eternally pregnant," in that He is eternally creating?

So how is it that, when the idea of creation is applied to God the Father, it is considered a magnificent an good thing, but when applied to a woman, it is presented as a dismissive insult?

My point is that this idea says a great deal more about the attitudes of those who say it than about the beliefs of those of whom it is said.

And my point is that the notion that the “God of Earth” is one of an unlimited number of Gods; and that he is an ‘exalted’ man of flesh and bones who himself is the offspring of a God who is an ‘exalted’ man of flesh and bones, et cetera ad infinitum; and that Mormons may themselves become Gods and rule over their own worlds; and that this God who is a man procreates spirit children with his multiple ‘exalted’ goddess wives is abberant, blasphemous, and repulsive to a Christian. Mormons may believe anything they wish, and I would have no comment, but it’s the LDS claim to be Christian and the “true church” to which I must object.

Christian? :nope:

Jim Dandy

 

[dianaiad]

And my point is that the notion that the “God of Earth” is one of an unlimited number of Gods; and that he is an ‘exalted’ man of flesh and bones who himself is the offspring of a God who is an ‘exalted’ man of flesh and bones, et cetera ad infinitum; and that Mormons may themselves become Gods and rule over their own worlds; and that this God who is a man procreates spirit children with his multiple ‘exalted’ goddess wives is abberant, blasphemous, and repulsive to a Christian. Mormons may believe anything they wish, and I would have no comment, but it’s the LDS claim to be Christian and the “true church” to which I must object.

Christian? :nope:

Jim Dandy

Dandy, you have utterly missed the point yet again. It’s not about what you believe about God. It’s not about what WE believe about God. It’s about what those who…

Oh, nevermind.