Women Bishops - good idea or mortal sin?

The Church of England, leaders of the Anglican faith, have just sort of decided to have a vote in couple of years that could allow women to be bishops in the church - maybe. A recent last-minute ploy by Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the CofE) to undermine the value of the position to appease traditionalists was narrowly rejected at the weekend.

Since the overwhelming majority of church-attendees are women (80% in the UK, I think), is it a good thing to invite women into the boys' club that has been Christian church leadership, up to now? Would female family-building skills increase church relevance, attractiveness or numbers? After all, women's head covering and slavery were abandoned as unimportant or conflicting with the doctrine's principles a long time ago by Christianity. Why should the position of women in the church be any different to other teachings about the equality of women in the bible?

Is soteriology really that important any more? The "special" characteristics of the ordained have far less importance now than they ever used to, at least in main-stream Christianity and with most Catholics I know.

Or is it ok to continue to exclude the Church from sexual equality legislation? Coincidentally, the Pope recently took the opportunity to refresh the Catholic position on women bishops as being a serious "mortal sin" (unlike failing to notify authorities over child abuse claims about your priests' molestations.) If Christians do forget this bit of the bible, what other bits will be next? It seems to me that tradition is a vital part of the "coziness" and "enduring believability" of faith, so people won't want to change, where they are not forced to. Perhaps the women in power may actually start to distribute some of the huge wealth (14 billion GBP, if I'm not mistaken for the CofE) to worthy causes.

I peronally have some sympathy/frustration with both sides. If women do become bishops, it will only serve the causes of Christianity to a wider audience, while further diluting the adherence to their doctrine. It would also create more attention for both the Christian and Catholic reaction causes without paying any attention to their central premises, or probably any other views outside those two Christian perspectives. On the other hand, it does only serve to divide the Anglican church further in the short term.

/rant

(Edited for grammar, post GB response.)

I don't know about bishops, but I don't see a problem with female imams.ghoklebutter

Why not? Mohammad specifically said "a woman may not lead a man in prayer".

Wait...how are 80% of church goers in England female? That makes no sense. Usually entire families share the same religion and since most women are married or in a relationship you would think that they would bring their husbands/boyfriends along with them. And I've never noticed a sex discrepancy in church attendees here in the states, but then again the USA isn't the UK so maybe things are really different over there.

Anyway, I think it's silly and archaic that women aren't allowed to become bishops. Personally I've always wondered how the incredible amounts of misogyny found in most religions don't tip off most people to the fact that the religions are just the constructs of social norms of ancient civillizations and not actually divinely inspired, but I guess most people will keep on believing something if they're told its true by everyone around them starting from infancy.

Wait...how are 80% of church goers in England female? That makes no sense. Usually entire families share the same religion and since most women are married or in a relationship you would think that they would bring their husbands/boyfriends along with them. And I've never noticed a sex discrepancy in church attendees here in the states, but then again the USA isn't the UK so maybe things are really different over there.

Anyway, I think it's silly and archaic that women aren't allowed to become bishops. Personally I've always wondered how the incredible amounts of misogyny found in most religions don't tip off most people to the fact that the religions are just the constructs of social norms of ancient civillizations and not actually divinely inspired, but I guess most people will keep on believing something if they're told its true by everyone around them starting from infancy.

gameguy6700

I may be a bit out on that stat, but church attendances in the UK are typically appauling. I heard that stat from a female Anglican priest in the synod (on TV news). I did find some lesser stats, at 65% women here. (In my mitigation, I think that site includes UK Catholics too - a far more "family oriented" enterprise that may even out the stats...) I think the average age for a Church of England attendance is just under 65, which might explain it!

I really have no issue with them deciding either way. Their policies are their policies.Android339

Them? Do you have a view on your own faith? What about Mormon women preachers?

Well I would kind of offer the same perspective that I would on issues of homosexuality, evolution etc

Do I think it would be a good idea for a religious person to accept these things? yes. Do I think that doing so is consistent with your holy book? no.

It's another one of these choices that Christians face between the ridiculous anachronistic dogma found in the Bible and what would be sensible to endorse.

Well I would kind of offer the same perspective that I would on issues of homosexuality, evolution etc

Do I think it would be a good idea for a religious person to accept these things? yes. Do I think that doing so is consistent with your holy book? no.

It's another one of these choices that Christians face between the ridiculous anachronistic dogma found in the Bible and what would be sensible to endorse.

domatron23

Good answer.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]I don't know about bishops, but I don't see a problem with female imams.RationalAtheist

Why not? Mohammad specifically said "a woman may not lead a man in prayer".

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]I don't know about bishops, but I don't see a problem with female imams.Animatronic64

Why not? Mohammad specifically said "a woman may not lead a man in prayer".

I know! Rather than women wearing the hijab, men should wear blindfolds. Right?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]I don't know about bishops, but I don't see a problem with female imams.RationalAtheist

Why not? Mohammad specifically said "a woman may not lead a man in prayer".

I'm fine with that. I just think there should be more females giving speeches or sermons on Friday prayers and such. Basically everything besides leading a man in prayer.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]I don't know about bishops, but I don't see a problem with female imams.RationalAtheist

Why not? Mohammad specifically said "a woman may not lead a man in prayer".

I know! Rather than women wearing the hijab, men should wear blindfolds. Right?

What hijab are you talking about: the headscarf or the niqab? Because I'm personally against the latter, but I think the former is perfectly fine. 

There are no Mormon women who are preachers, but there aren't really any Mormon men who are preachers, either. Consider Sacrament Meeting, where at least three members of the branch or ward go up to speak. The president/bishop of the branch/ward usually only presides, and one of the counselors usually conducts the meeting, but as for the speakers who give the talks ("sermons"), they can be of any gender, or even age.

There is a division in gender when it comes to the Priesthood, however. Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood. What this means is that they cannot baptize, cannot perform a confirmation, cannot ordain, cannot be ordained to Priesthood offices, etc. Their role is no less diminished, however, because of this, and from what I've seen in the two branches that I've come to call home, the women, even young women, are very active.

Android339

I'm really talking about the male domination of the offices of priesthood here. If women are good enough to do the grass-roots stuff, doesn't that make them equally eligible to do the official stuff? How can you say the role of women is no less diminished, if they are not allowed official revelations?

I'm fine with that. I just think there should be more females giving speeches or sermons on Friday prayers and such. Basically everything besides leading a man in prayer.

ghoklebutter

Same thing at you too - if women are good enough to do the rest of it, why not to lead a man in prayer? Why shouldn't women hold high office within the structure of the Islam faith?

What hijab are you talking about: the headscarf or the niqab? Because I'm personally against the latter, but I think the former is perfectly fine.

ghoklebutter

I don't really like any form of religious "modesty covering" or even identification, but the niqab (full face-veil) is most personally offensive and disturbing to me.

It's not that they're not "good enough" to hold Priesthood offices. It's just that they are called to serve in different ways. Along with the Priesthood there is the Relief Society, run completely by women, and in many ways it mirrors the organization of the Priesthood offices. It has even been said that men need the Priesthood more, not because they deserve it more, but because "men are dogs" and it's used to refine them. Also, what do you mean by "official revelations"? All are entitled to receive personal revelations. Understandably, however, only the Prophet receives revelation for the entire Church. Android339

I think it's the "understandably" bit I have trouble have understanding; about why women can't be Prophets, if they are as good, or better (less like dogs) than men. Surely the orginisation would run more effecively then?

They are called to serve in different capacities, in different ways. As for the official reason, I could not tell you, because I do not know. However, I am of the opinion that Priesthood offices are not always given to those who deserve them, but to those who need them to grow and progress. Android339

Do you think the Mormon priesthood would be better - more insightful or engaging - with women priests and prophets?

I would hesitste at the prospect of giving authority to people that are not best placed to deal with it. Also, wouldn't/shouldn't women need to grow and progress in the priesthood?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Android339"]

They are called to serve in different capacities, in different ways. As for the official reason, I could not tell you, because I do not know. However, I am of the opinion that Priesthood offices are not always given to those who deserve them, but to those who need them to grow and progress. Android339

Do you think the Mormon priesthood would be better - more insightful or engaging - with women priests and prophets?

I would hesitste at the prospect of giving authority to people that are not best placed to deal with it. Also, wouldn't/shouldn't women need to grow and progress in the priesthood?

I'm not sure what you mean by that first question. How could it be more insightful and engaging? Would the baptisms be done in a fancier way? Would the Relief Society talks dominate General Conference?

Even if the purpose was to test them and allow them to grow and progress? I suppose I would hesitate to if I were running a business, but this isn't a business - it's a Church. And no, they wouldn't need to grow and progress in the Priesthood, because as the assumption goes currently, men are dogs, and women are more spiritually oriented. They are tried and tested in different ways.

Given that you say women are "more spiritually oriented" the nature of Priestly services would inherit those qualities if women practiced them. I'm talking about the revolutionary notion of women and men being equally involved in both areas of your church. I mean, why not?

If men are dogs, what gives them the right to decide the capabilities of women in their shared church?

Women don't need to be members of the Priesthood to influence the Priesthood. While women themselves seem to be more spiritually oriented, I don't think, for instance, baptisms would be more spiritual because a woman is doing the baptizing. Why? Worthy Priesthood holders are also spiritually oriented, and this is because they hold the Priesthood.

Android339

Surely the priesthood take votes on things. If being a priest make your more spiritually oriented, wouldn't that also apply to women too - bringing them to an even higher spiritual plane?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

If men are dogs, what gives them the right to decide the capabilities of women in their shared church?

Android339

Men are dogs without the Priesthood. They are given the Priesthood to transcend a largely carnal nature.

So women (assuming they don't have a carnal nature for a second) wouldn't have to transcend this barrier, making them even more eligible for priesthood. If being a priest makes you a better person, wouldn't the same apply to women too?

Same thing at you too - if women are good enough to do the rest of it, why not to lead a man in prayer? Why shouldn't women hold high office within the structure of the Islam faith?

RationalAtheist

I admit, that's a good question. However, I really don't see an issue, since that rule doesn't put women at a lower status or limits them in any significant way. Women aren't obligated to go the mosque anyway, so it's not a big deal to me. Had it been the opposite, I would definitely have an issue with that rule.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Surely the priesthood take votes on things. If being a priest make your more spiritually oriented, wouldn't that also apply to women too - bringing them to an even higher spiritual plane?

Android339

Women don't need the Priesthood as much as men. Like I said, the Church is not run as a business - the Church gives people the opportunity to grow. The men in the Priesthood, and the women in the Relief Society. Women find spiritual growth in the Relief Society, while the Priesthood is given to men for various reasons - one, because they are generally considered the head of the household, although that is not to say that women do not have a part. Even the macrocosm of the Church demonstrates that women have an important part, and they do not complain about wanting more. Just because they do not hold the Priesthood, does not mean that their influence amounts to nothing.

So women (assuming they don't have a carnal nature for a second) wouldn't have to transcend this barrier, making them even more eligible for priesthood. If being a priest makes you a better person, wouldn't the same apply to women too?

RationalAthiest

I did not say that women do not have a carnal nature. Men are just more aggressive about it. Men need to be reigned in more than women do. Women hae their own opportunities to serve. They can even serve as missionaries. And besides, giving the Priesthood to women is not something that can be decided by majority vote. It must be by revelation.

How do you know that women don't need the priesthood as much as men? Why split the Relief Society and the Priesthood? Why not integrate them, or are women such seperate entities as humans that we must be divided in authority?

If revelation was accepted from women, woudn't you think such a revelation would happen? Women really don't have the same opportunity to serve, if they are not allowed to be prophets, officiate ceremonies, or add to the faith's doctrine by means of revelation.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Same thing at you too - if women are good enough to do the rest of it, why not to lead a man in prayer? Why shouldn't women hold high office within the structure of the Islam faith?

ghoklebutter

I admit, that's a good question. However, I really don't see an issue, since that rule doesn't put women at a lower status or limits them in any significant way. Women aren't obligated to go the mosque anyway, so it's not a big deal to me. Had it been the opposite, I would definitely have an issue with that rule.

Isn't the reason you don't see it as an issue because you're not a woman? Surely having to cover your face, as not having a direct and equal participation in the religious ceremonies, church organisation and law making is a limitation of status.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

How do you know that women don't need the priesthood as much as men? Why split the Relief Society and the Priesthood? Why not integrate them, or are women such seperate entities as humans that we must be divided in authority?

Android339

I'm working on assumption and speculation. I'm not claiming that my assertion that men need the Priesthood more than women is accepted doctrine - it's just one reason among more. Here you're simply trying to show how primitive us Mormons are. "Such separate entities as humans." Have I said that? Even once? Women are not separate from humans. Women are human, just as men are, but men and women are notably different, and we are called to serve in different capacities.

So here is the real answer - its not down to anything other than doctrine - you have to assume and speculate the reasoning, since its not easily apparent. I'm not trying to show how primitive Mormons are - I think Mormonism is one of the more advanced religions actually, strategically speaking (not that I regard that as a good thing).

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

If revelation was accepted from women, woudn't you think such a revelation would happen? Women really don't have the same opportunity to serve, if they are not allowed to be prophets, officiate ceremonies, or add to the faith's doctrine by means of revelation.

Android339

Such revelation does happen. Personal revelation is open to all. Even little children. In any case, you could say that men don't have the same opportunies as women to serve - they cannot have children, be mothers, be members of the Relief Society, etc. If anyone is looking at this as some sort of arbitrary division, it's you - it's none of the members of our Church. And how many men are allowed to be prophets at any one time, anyway? One. One President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you add the rest of the Apostles, that's only 15. 15 out of at least 14 million members.

You know we're not talking about personal revelation, but revelation that guides the whole church. I realise that women have different biological functions to men, but hey have similar mental capacities - you even admit they are superior in key faith-bound ways in your view. The fact still remains that no women are in place in the administration or offices of your Church. Why is there a division between the sexes at all there, so that women never get the chance to be apostles?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

So here is the real answer - its not down to anything other than doctrine - you have to assume and speculate the reasoning, since its not easily apparent. I'm not trying to show how primitive Mormons are - I think Mormonism is one of the more advanced religions actually, strategically speaking (not that I regard that as a good thing).

Android339

It's not easily apparent because that's not exactly a topic I research for fun. This particular issue has not been much of a stickler for me. As the organization stands, it works magnificently. You haven't really given me any good reason as to why the Church should allow women the Priesthood. It mostly goes along the lines of, why not? We are called to serve in different ways and capacities.

Suppose I said I was a Mormon woman and I wanted to be a priest? Would that be a good reason? The "different ways" argument does not make any reference to the running of the church. Why should this be a male-dominated role in this age of sexual equality? We know that women have similar faculties to men and they can and do operate well within organisations together. What is the reasoning fof these differeing ways and separation of the sexes in your church?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

You know we're not talking about personal revelation, but revelation that guides the whole church. I realise that women have different biological functions to men, but hey have similar mental capacities - you even admit they are superior in key faith-bound ways in your view. The fact still remains that no women are in place in the administration or offices of your Church. Why is there a division between the sexes at all there, so that women never get the chance to be apostles?

Android339

Superior in key faith-bound ways? I merely said they're more spiritually oriented. They're generally more emotional. This sensitivity does not necessarily qualify them for operating in the offices of the Priesthood. You are incorrect to say that no women are in place in the administration of my Church. The Relief Society operates largely on its own. It is run by women. There is a division because men and women are called to serve in different ways - in the Church, in the family, etc. Even in the localized areas like the Branch I attend, the young women's presidency operates in harmony with the Priesthood, but is lead still by women. The way the Church is organized as of now, it allows for three degrees of fellowship: all together, gender with gender, and age with age. Why mess with this?

I think you are generalising about the emotions of women in disabling them from positions of office. Margaret Thather, the Queen and our current UK Home Office minister Theresa May might disagree with you. Messing with your current arrangement may in fact empower women into greater positions of responsibility and ability and direction within your church.

Do you even know what it means to be a priest in our Church? It is not advantageous for a woman to be a priest - it offers no benefit to the gender as a whole. Girls are not called to be priests. Boys are.

Android339

Would a woman? Surely then benefit of relvelation that could shape the future of the church would be an advantage. Why not move with society on this, seeing as women have proven themselves quite capable of this sort of thing, haven't they? I do know about the current state of affairs. The whole point of this thread is why aren't things different?

Barring women from the Priesthood does not make them unequal with men. The fact that we are called to serve in different ways, and the fact there may be some reason of "reigning in the aggressive natural man" in men, does not make men and women unequal in our Church.The "different ways" argument does make reference ot the running of the Church - the Priesthood runs the Church as a whole, and all worthy men are holders of the Priesthood.

Android339

Obviously, women and men also serve in some of the same ways too, so why seperate the women from positions of authority? Women have been ex-communicated for apostasy for being opposed to the Mormon Churches patriarchal structure. Would you like some testimonies?

The reasoning - Heavenly Father has called us to serve in different ways and capacities. The men in the Priesthood, and the women in the Relief Society. The only one who is making up such a disparity between the importance of both organizational bodies is you. The Relief Society does a lot of good, and it is lead by women. It is a very important body, as well as the other organizations such as Young Women's, which is also lead by women.

Android339

Ah yes, the "different ways" argument, yet again. Do you get tired of repeating it without explaining it? It's almost automated!The ways men and women serve the church are similar, except in roles of authority in the priesthood. The relief society promotes helping women learn more abouth the responsibilities of Mormonism (i.e. suppression of will) and helping the poor. How is that any different to what male Mormons do?

I said that the generally accepted notion that women are more spiritually oriented and more emotional than men do not solely qualify them for the offices of the Priesthood, as you suggested. What I did not say was that this somehow is the reason they are barred from the Priesthood. There is quite a difference between "does not qualify for" and "reason it is withheld". The closest statement I would make to that is that the general tendencies of women to be more emotional and spiritually oriented lead them to serve better in different aspects of the Church, like the Relief Society.

Android339

I never suggested that women are solely qualified for the offices of priesthood. It was you who suggested that women are more "spiritual", then corrected it to "emotional" - as if those qualities would inhibit such a role for women. The Relief society (as set up by a man) is effectively the Mormon church for women. Is it funded by and accountable to the LDS priesthood, I wonder? Why the big split between the men and the women in your church?

You say "empower women" as if they are suppressed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is simply not true. What advantage do women gain in receiving the Priesthood and being allowed into the offices thereof? There is no significant advantage for women as a gender in being allowed to lead the Church. Heavenly Father has called us to serve in different ways. In this current dispensation, all worthy men operate in the Priesthood, and all worthy women operate in the Relief Society.

The way it is currently organized, there is harmony. Those of the same age fellowship and cooperate with those of the same age, those of the same gender fellowship and cooperate with those of the same gender, and every one fellowships and cooperates with every one. You decry the fact that women do not receive the Priesthood as some sort of crime against humanity, while really there is nothing to the advantage of women as a whole if they were to receive it. They are already allowed to give talks, even in General Conference. And these talks can be counted as revelation concerning the relevant organizational body. They can serve as missionaries and other positions that can also be held by Priesthood holders. What can they simply not do? Church administration as a whole, and ordinances such as baptism, etc. And how does this negatively affect them? It doesn't. I only see gratitude among the female members of the Church that male members are willing to give up their time, without compensation, in service of the Church as branch presidents, counselors, etc.

Does the fact that they cannot receive the Priesthood mean they are unequal? No! The only one who is making such an assertion is you. And it is rather offensive. Not only to me, but to any female members of the Church who would read your words and feel belittled because it is suggested by you that those who operate in the Priesthood are better than them. Neither I, nor the Church, nor the female members of the Church, feel this way. Neither should you.

Android339

Why not change with society? Can't you see the value women have to society outdide the home? There is no harmony for women leaving the Mormon faith, or getting chucked out of it, for their views on equality. I don't think women being in the priesthood is a crime against humanity.

So are women served to call in different ways, or do they serve in the same ways? You just said both things. I've repeated that women can not be priests, or have revelations that can affect the church. That issue does seem rather unequal to me.

Plenty of others make similar assertions about the male-dominated church that is the church of the LDS. Many people have been so traumatised by their time as Mormons, or harassed so badly on trying to leave, that they've written books about it. You have every right to be offended at my positive stance on women in all areas of society, just as I have every right to be offended at your seeming sexism. I can only speak for myself, whereas you seem to be trying to tell me what to think (for no good reason I can see).

I did have a reply ready, but I decided to erase it. You're a moderator in this union, so you should be able to read it, anyway, but I'm not going to discuss a topic as controversial as this with someone who already has strong, immovable and preconceived notions that I'm sexist, among other notions concerning Mormons. Not only is this personally offensive to me, but LDS women are also being belittled by the insistence of people like you who say that they are unimportant in the Church. Feel free to reply, but I'm not taking this discussion into what is becoming more offensive to me and to LDS women. Any Mormon can attest to the importance that women have in their lives, and their importance in regards to the Church. We should not have to defend this importance to someone with minimal experience with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Android339

Why do you feel that you have to speak for LDS women? Can't they speak for themselves? I see no point in reading a reply that you didn't want me to - even if it was possible.

Initially, you said you didn't seem concerned by this and it wasn't a "stickler" for you. Now its "as controversial as this"... I can attest to the importance of women in my life (being married to one). Importance does not equal authority though. Whereas my wife and I can make joint decisions about our lives together, women in the Mormon church can not achieve the same status as men and plan the church's future with them - only "support" them in their "priestly" roles.

Of course you should be prepared to defend your views. How am I going to understand that women are equal to men in the administration of the church, if they are plainly not? Why should my minimal experience with the Mormon church prevent you from making a justified argument for your case? Are you blind to inherent sexism being a common criticism of the Mormon faith?

I did have a reply ready, but I decided to erase it. You're a moderator in this union, so you should be able to read it, anyway, but I'm not going to discuss a topic as controversial as this with someone who already has strong, immovable and preconceived notions that I'm sexist, among other notions concerning Mormons. Not only is this personally offensive to me, but LDS women are also being belittled by the insistence of people like you who say that they are unimportant in the Church. Feel free to reply, but I'm not taking this discussion into what is becoming more offensive to me and to LDS women. Any Mormon can attest to the importance that women have in their lives, and their importance in regards to the Church. We should not have to defend this importance to someone with minimal experience with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Android339

If you won't explain things that are questionable about the church, then you can't really be offended if someone says something that is wrong. If you correct someone and explain why they were wrong, then the person knows not to make the same mistake in the future.

But by walking away on the count of someone being unknowledgeable, you are doing nothing to solve the problem. I'm curious what exactly you expected from a largely atheistic union.

hmm androids points make sense it seems and it appears hes suffering from a common problem athiest tend to like to question every speakable point about everything and even suggesting well why not change with the times? well i ask why exactly should a church change with the times isnt that one of the biggest complaints people have churches are constitent? no where in my studies of christianity do i see women called as priests so why exactly should the mormon church or any christian church change with the times when there religious texts clearly state otherwise? is this not a good enough reason?

so why exactly are you pestering the poor guy for sticking to his beleifs and offering what appears to be a very valid women are equally important arguement in other ways? and for his church being constant and sticking to its beleifs and not changing to everyones whims.

from what i gather hes trying to say men are fathers women are mothers two different yet equal roles that serve in different ways. i have to wonder would rationalathiest like men to join the relief society? or would that too be sexist? a glancing search of google and relief society seems to indicate a very strong womens organization that helps out other women hardly appears to be a the surpressed group you think it is but i could again be wrong.

hmm androids points make sense it seems and it appears hes suffering from a common problem athiest tend to like to question every speakable point about everything and even suggesting well why not change with the times? well i ask why exactly should a church change with the times isnt that one of the biggest complaints people have churches are constitent? no where in my studies of christianity do i see women called as priests so why exactly should the mormon church or any christian church change with the times when there religious texts clearly state otherwise? is this not a good enough reason?

so why exactly are you pestering the poor guy for sticking to his beleifs and offering what appears to be a very valid women are equally important arguement in other ways? and for his church being constant and sticking to its beleifs and not changing to everyones whims.

from what i gather hes trying to say men are fathers women are mothers two different yet equal roles that serve in different ways. i have to wonder would rationalathiest like men to join the relief society? or would that too be sexist? a glancing search of google and relief society seems to indicate a very strong womens organization that helps out other women hardly appears to be a the surpressed group you think it is but i could again be wrong.

kayoticdreamz

I guess you have not read my responses clearly, where I often asked why the relief society and the priesthood are not combined. I've asked why the separation but don't have any answers, aside form "different ways ... different ways ... etc".

Don't you think it's right that the Church of England (for example) changes with the times and lets in Women as Bishops (they are already CofE women priests). Or should we all be allowed to keep slaves too, like it says in the bible? Why does the Book of Mormon keep getting revised?

Welcome to the atheism union - a place where theist beliefs can be questioned without question.

As a bit more background, I've researched something about the role of Mormon women, the way Mormon revelations work, and Joseph Smith's attitudes to his first wife, Emma Hale (from here):

"

In the relative stability of Nauvoo, Joseph would try to establish polygamy, a practice he had flirted with in Kirtland and Missouri. Between the years 1841 and 1843, Joseph would marry more than thirty wives. He kept the practice veiled from the public and from his wife, Emma. When she discovered that he was taking additional wives, she struggled to accept it. Joseph received a revelation regarding this "new and everlasting covenant" of plural marriage, part of which was directed at Emma:

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...
D&C 132:4 ...no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
D&C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph...
D&C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then...I will...give unto him an hundred fold in this world, of...wives..."
D&C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him...he cannot commit adultery...
D&C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed...

"

Threatening much?

for starters that is his personal beleif why exactly should he change it for you? this isnt slavery its not even close.

and exactly men and women two different beasts why exactly should they be joined? why cant there be a womens only club in that church there appears to be a mens only club too? why is this wrong? if anything its more admirable they havent changed with the times and have stuck to their guns. again i state there is nothing primivite about having a young mens and young womens club and seperating the two. women are mothers and men are fathers they perform two seperate important functions android answered this i dont know why you are bent on digging further into it i thought his answer was great. you want women priest join the church of england.

as for plural marriage its hardly relevant to anything in this topic. mormons dont practice it so its not relevant to mormonism as a whole. since obviously we talking about mormon women now but even with that im going to guess mormon women then didnt have a problem with since if you read the entire section 132 it says the first wife must consent and the other wives must not be given to another yet. and i personally probably would of struggled to have this conservation with my wife so i think i can i understand the feelings there. in fact the only reason people pick on it is because mormons claim they are the true church and people like to say see look you abandoned your true principle when the fact remains the US military hunted them down till they abandoned i think thats called trying to simply survive and being forced to make exceptions for the sake of survival and as far as important points im not sure more than 1 wife is the most important principle they live by. so again no point in even bringing it up.

if the church of england wants women bishops so be it that is their call mormons apparently feel differently that is their call. you have problems with perhaps you shouldnt be a mormon then though i hardly find a seperate womens club in the church sexist in the least.

for starters that is his personal beleif why exactly should he change it for you? this isnt slavery its not even close.

kayoticdreamz

I was not asking Android to change his belief - only to explain it. Slavery is allowed in the bible right next to the bit where women priests are not.

and exactly men and women two different beasts why exactly should they be joined? why cant there be a womens only club in that church there appears to be a mens only club too? why is this wrong? if anything its more admirable they havent changed with the times and have stuck to their guns. again i state there is nothing primivite about having a young mens and young womens club and seperating the two. women are mothers and men are fathers they perform two seperate important functions android answered this i dont know why you are bent on digging further into it i thought his answer was great. you want women priest join the church of england.

kayoticdreamz

Don't times change for a reason? Why can't they have a unified running of the church though? Why does the men's club have this role and not the women's club? What important church functions are not possible for women to perfom that men only can perform in church? Mothers and fathers can lead communinities, organisations and other structures together for their mutual benefit, so why not Mormons? I won't go with the CofE since they don't have realistic answers to my sensible questions either.

as for plural marriage its hardly relevant to anything in this topic. mormons dont practice it so its not relevant to mormonism as a whole. since obviously we talking about mormon women now but even with that im going to guess mormon women then didnt have a problem with since if you read the entire section 132 it says the first wife must consent and the other wives must not be given to another yet. and i personally probably would of struggled to have this conservation with my wife so i think i can i understand the feelings there. in fact the only reason people pick on it is because mormons claim they are the true church and people like to say see look you abandoned your true principle when the fact remains the US military hunted them down till they abandoned i think thats called trying to simply survive and being forced to make exceptions for the sake of survival and as far as important points im not sure more than 1 wife is the most important principle they live by. so again no point in even bringing it up.

if the church of england wants women bishops so be it that is their call mormons apparently feel differently that is their call. you have problems with perhaps you shouldnt be a mormon then though i hardly find a seperate womens club in the church sexist in the least.

kayoticdreamz

Joseph Smith didn't abide by 132 himself though, did he? Mormon felt differently about black people, until the mid 70s. If the US military hunted Mormons down, why did the US admit Utah into the constitution? Also, if what you say is true, then your faith has diluted its ideals to fit with society, hasn't it? There are plenty of good reasons for me not wanting to be a Mormon. I was only asking others to try justifying their particular views on women (or the views of their religions) rationally.

P.S. I did forget to highlight this bit in red form the end of my last quote:

"D&C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed..."

Could you explain how that isn't sexist?

sorry quote tag wasnt working too well freakin glitchspot

really the bible says thou shalt enslave thy neighbor? really i really must of missed that part. now i know certain kings that normally get punished later have slaves but dont recall any of the prophets of said bible ever making such a claim. unless we are referring to servants in which case we have servants today maids employees etc. a bit of a stretch dont ya think?

considering android answered those questions and your still not happy is it possible at all that God himself could come down give you answers and youd still whine and moan? honestly i thought it was a clear explanation men priesthood woman relief society. as to the entire logic behind it perhaps you could read the book of mormon or contact the church website and see if they have a question section or maybe the head of the church will take your call. otherwise it really appears as though said question was answered. or perhaps maybe android doesnt know the full reason to it i mean i find it hardly fair to expect him to memorize the whole bible much less the extra mormon scriptures too and recall them at a moments notice hardly fair.

ok so first its lets have mormons change with the times with women priest then its oh abandon plural marriage is abandoning your faith? sounds like regardless you arent happy and arent satisfied. never mind the fact mormons are the only religion in america to ever get said death order on them. and when they first moved to utah i dont think utah was a state probably took a little while. too me it sounds like they abandoned a principle that wasnt 100% neccessary in exchange for getting the us military off their backs no idea why you trash this church but seem to condone other churches changing with the times and even suggesting they change with the times. hyprocisy much? sounds very much like my question in the other thread why are mormons singled out among christian arguements.

no idea how exactly your highlighted section is any worse than anything else or any different than obey me or be destroyed. i really dont find it sexist if you consider the entire book heck just consider the bible its hardly sexist everybody seems to get that warning.

sorry quote tag wasnt working too well freakin glitchspot

really the bible says thou shalt enslave thy neighbor? really i really must of missed that part. now i know certain kings that normally get punished later have slaves but dont recall any of the prophets of said bible ever making such a claim. unless we are referring to servants in which case we have servants today maids employees etc. a bit of a stretch dont ya think?

kayoticdreamz

Part? There's more than one: Exodus 20:21-22, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18, etc. The bible certainly condones slavery.

considering android answered those questions and your still not happy is it possible at all that God himself could come down give you answers and youd still whine and moan? honestly i thought it was a clear explanation men priesthood woman relief society. as to the entire logic behind it perhaps you could read the book of mormon or contact the church website and see if they have a question section or maybe the head of the church will take your call. otherwise it really appears as though said question was answered. or perhaps maybe android doesnt know the full reason to it i mean i find it hardly fair to expect him to memorize the whole bible much less the extra mormon scriptures too and recall them at a moments notice hardly fair.

kayoticdreamz

Why should you be concerned that I'm not happy? I whine and moan only because I'm just trying to understand why the Mormons act in the way they do. I'm sorry if that line of questioning annoys you. There was no real explanation of why women and men are split in their roles for the church, with the women being on the side that doesn't make church decisions or have revelations. If you can accept that "they are called in different ways" as Android seems to , then please understand that I can't accept it. There is no reasoning given for it. Conversely, men and women work in similar ways for the church, as I think Android stated. I think I know one side of the reality of Mormon views about women in the church from browsing book lists in Amazon, from men and women leaving the Mormon faith.

I know - its totally unfair to recall Mormon or biblical scripture like I - an atheist - have! How dare I!

ok so first its lets have mormons change with the times with women priest then its oh abandon plural marriage is abandoning your faith? sounds like regardless you arent happy and arent satisfied. never mind the fact mormons are the only religion in america to ever get said death order on them. and when they first moved to utah i dont think utah was a state probably took a little while. too me it sounds like they abandoned a principle that wasnt 100% neccessary in exchange for getting the us military off their backs no idea why you trash this church but seem to condone other churches changing with the times and even suggesting they change with the times. hyprocisy much? sounds very much like my question in the other thread why are mormons singled out among christian arguements.

kayoticdreamz

That's not what I said. I thought you were against changing with the times, when the Mormon faith did do just that. I don't think the Mormons are the most persecuted religion in the world, so if you want to play for sympathy, I'd suggest Judaism is far more suitable for you. Do you really think what I condone matters, or that I would even condone any sort of religion? I think I'm rather even-handed in my criticism of religion - you can read my tirades against Islam and Buddhism, blogs against Evangelical and Conservative Christianity and pokes and mysticism on this site. I've come to understand that my questioning people's justification for their faith tends to offend them. You will find no particular venom against Mormonism from me. In fact, I knew little about it and have found out a great deal recently because of Android's appearance in this atheist union. Rather than complaining about me trashing your church, why not respond with some reasonable justification for Mormon decision-making instead?

no idea how exactly your highlighted section is any worse than anything else or any different than obey me or be destroyed. i really dont find it sexist if you consider the entire book heck just consider the bible its hardly sexist everybody seems to get that warning.

kayoticdreamz

I know you can't think it worse than anything else, since you're defending it as not being sexist, aren't you? So women have to obey men and accept other men's infidelity and marriage to other women, else they will be destroyed? I wonder what you think sexism is.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

sorry quote tag wasnt working too well freakin glitchspot

really the bible says thou shalt enslave thy neighbor? really i really must of missed that part. now i know certain kings that normally get punished later have slaves but dont recall any of the prophets of said bible ever making such a claim. unless we are referring to servants in which case we have servants today maids employees etc. a bit of a stretch dont ya think?

RationalAtheist

Part? There's more than one: Exodus 20:21-22, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18, etc. The bible certainly condones slavery.

considering android answered those questions and your still not happy is it possible at all that God himself could come down give you answers and youd still whine and moan? honestly i thought it was a clear explanation men priesthood woman relief society. as to the entire logic behind it perhaps you could read the book of mormon or contact the church website and see if they have a question section or maybe the head of the church will take your call. otherwise it really appears as though said question was answered. or perhaps maybe android doesnt know the full reason to it i mean i find it hardly fair to expect him to memorize the whole bible much less the extra mormon scriptures too and recall them at a moments notice hardly fair.

kayoticdreamz

Why should you be concerned that I'm not happy? I whine and moan only because I'm just trying to understand why the Mormons act in the way they do. I'm sorry if that line of questioning annoys you. There was no real explanation of why women and men are split in their roles for the church, with the women being on the side that doesn't make church decisions or have revelations. If you can accept that "they are called in different ways" as Android seems to , then please understand that I can't accept it. There is no reasoning given for it. Conversely, men and women work in similar ways for the church, as I think Android stated. I think I know one side of the reality of Mormon views about women in the church from browsing book lists in Amazon, from men and women leaving the Mormon faith.

I know - its totally unfair to recall Mormon or biblical scripture like I - an atheist - have! How dare I!

ok so first its lets have mormons change with the times with women priest then its oh abandon plural marriage is abandoning your faith? sounds like regardless you arent happy and arent satisfied. never mind the fact mormons are the only religion in america to ever get said death order on them. and when they first moved to utah i dont think utah was a state probably took a little while. too me it sounds like they abandoned a principle that wasnt 100% neccessary in exchange for getting the us military off their backs no idea why you trash this church but seem to condone other churches changing with the times and even suggesting they change with the times. hyprocisy much? sounds very much like my question in the other thread why are mormons singled out among christian arguements.

kayoticdreamz

That's not what I said. I thought you were against changing with the times, when the Mormon faith did do just that. I don't think the Mormons are the most persecuted religion in the world, so if you want to play for sympathy, I'd suggest Judaism is far more suitable for you. Do you really think what I condone matters, or that I would even condone any sort of religion? I think I'm rather even-handed in my criticism of religion - you can read my tirades against Islam and Buddhism, blogs against Evangelical and Conservative Christianity and pokes and mysticism on this site. I've come to understand that my questioning people's justification for their faith tends to offend them. You will find no particular venom against Mormonism from me. In fact, I knew little about it and have found out a great deal recently because of Android's appearance in this atheist union. Rather than complaining about me trashing your church, why not respond with some reasonable justification for Mormon decision-making instead?

no idea how exactly your highlighted section is any worse than anything else or any different than obey me or be destroyed. i really dont find it sexist if you consider the entire book heck just consider the bible its hardly sexist everybody seems to get that warning.

kayoticdreamz

I know you can't think it worse than anything else, since you're defending it as not being sexist, aren't you? So women have to obey men and accept other men's infidelity and marriage to other women, else they will be destroyed? I wonder what you think sexism is.

The exodus one is a wrong verse not talking about slavery unless I missed it the others you pointed out if you read the surrounding verses seem to indicate masters be kind to your slaves and vice versa. And also seem to say he that endureth and is thankful is rewarded. Im not quite sure I see an outright ok for slavery but rather a if you have slaves well be kind to them and vice versa and one saying because do this because God has no favoritism. At least that's how I read it I mean if you read the bible God has been known to gradually give people rules as they could handle it so he may have been working his way towards free men everywhere and simply starting with be kind to your slaves. Or you could at least say this is a different way of taking it than the way you offered plus also as a whole I have a hard time finding most Christians ive known to condone slavery.i mean a prime example is moses breaking the original more complicated tablets in favor of simple ones later so it could be something like that happening? I mean look how long it took for the world to eliminate slavery and even then its not 100% eliminated.

Im fairly certain android said even little children can get revelation so im sure women can. And look that's his answer that's the answer the church gives and im not really sure theres a better answer as to why. Theres a mens meeting a womens meeting and a later joint meeting. Seems fair.

Not saying mormons are the most persecuted or picked on religion as no one can top the jews but mormons have received a fair amount of hate in their short time period.

Ok I guess let me ask this given the fact mormons where being gunned down by the US military would you rather them stay and fight for plural marriage or not? I looked this up there wording was very much we have much more important work to do in the temples and that work far outweighs the losing fight for plural marriage and the leader at the time asks the question what would you rather us do stay and fight and by affect end plural marriage by imprisonment or live on and do the more important work we have to do?

Im for sticking to your beliefs but I cant really argue with that kind of logic.

Well I haven't read your rants on other faiths considering im new here. Plus I wanted to just ask people and see what responses I would get rather than read blogs.

So yes would you condone any sort of religion?

Because its not worse than anything or any of the other times God says obey be rewarded disobey be punished its really not any worse. Granted I do find it confusing the part about Emma but later says everybody else must get their first wifes consent. Im going to guess im misreading and don't understand it correctly. Perhaps android has the answer to this question of why Emma got called out but the rest had the consent of the first wife routine?

The exodus one is a wrong verse not talking about slavery unless I missed it the others you pointed out if you read the surrounding verses seem to indicate masters be kind to your slaves and vice versa. And also seem to say he that endureth and is thankful is rewarded. Im not quite sure I see an outright ok for slavery but rather a if you have slaves well be kind to them and vice versa and one saying because do this because God has no favoritism. At least that's how I read it I mean if you read the bible God has been known to gradually give people rules as they could handle it so he may have been working his way towards free men everywhere and simply starting with be kind to your slaves. Or you could at least say this is a different way of taking it than the way you offered plus also as a whole I have a hard time finding most Christians ive known to condone slavery.i mean a prime example is moses breaking the original more complicated tablets in favor of simple ones later so it could be something like that happening? I mean look how long it took for the world to eliminate slavery and even then its not 100% eliminated.

kayoticdreamz

Sorry - its Exodus 21:20-21! The one about it being ok to beat your slaves, but not ok to beat them until they die. There are more besides... I'm just wondering if the slavery stuff is similar to the prejudice against women in the bible. Many faiths have abandoned one bit of the doctine, while keeping the other.

Im fairly certain android said even little children can get revelation so im sure women can. And look that's his answer that's the answer the church gives and im not really sure theres a better answer as to why. Theres a mens meeting a womens meeting and a later joint meeting. Seems fair.

kayoticdreamz

Its not public faith changing revelation that can directly affect the course of the church, like previous revelations admitting black men into the priesthood ( 1978 ), or revisions to the Book of Mormon (a supposedly "perfect" book). Tell me more about these joint meetings. What do they do?

Not saying mormons are the most persecuted or picked on religion as no one can top the jews but mormons have received a fair amount of hate in their short time period.

Ok I guess let me ask this given the fact mormons where being gunned down by the US military would you rather them stay and fight for plural marriage or not? I looked this up there wording was very much we have much more important work to do in the temples and that work far outweighs the losing fight for plural marriage and the leader at the time asks the question what would you rather us do stay and fight and by affect end plural marriage by imprisonment or live on and do the more important work we have to do?

Im for sticking to your beliefs but I cant really argue with that kind of logic.

kayoticdreamz

Well, you either stick to your principles, or you don't. But do you retain those core values while you endure the pressures of an adverse society? Or were the origianal actions of marrying over 30 women before telling his wife, then threatening her with destruction via divine relelation if she didn't accept his philandering, now considered wrong? If these actions were morally dubious, then why put any sway in anything else Jo Smith claimed? I regard the revelation as a bit of back-tracking to ensure the survival of the religion. Doesn't it put Mormons in a difficult position though, where fundamental and founding aims of male dominion over women must be denied until society is "won", I guess.

Well I haven't read your rants on other faiths considering im new here. Plus I wanted to just ask people and see what responses I would get rather than read blogs.

So yes would you condone any sort of religion?

kayoticdreamz

If you want to talk about why the other faiths are wrong, then you are welcome to here. The answers might be a bit close to home though! Why should I condone any religion? I'd much rather people took a more secular view, seeing as that's the reality of the world today. I think religion encourages a fundamental abrogation of personal responsibility.

Because its not worse than anything or any of the other times God says obey be rewarded disobey be punished its really not any worse. Granted I do find it confusing the part about Emma but later says everybody else must get their first wifes consent. Im going to guess im misreading and don't understand it correctly. Perhaps android has the answer to this question of why Emma got called out but the rest had the consent of the first wife routine?

kayoticdreamz

If I were into a faith, I'd want to find out all the stuff surrounding the faith. I'd want to try and understand the leader of the church. I want to understand if the things he said and did seemed credible to me. After all, he made some big claims, requiring big evidence to support them. The wife's consent is set against the threat of destruction. Just as in your US military scenareo, would you accept, or await destruction (and 100 fold more wives to compete with beforehand anyway - just for good measure!)?