Morg racism has declined somewhat in the last few decades. Homophbia is obvious to most outsiders if not to members. Sexism, alive and well, is mostly overlooked by insiders and outsiders alike.

It's much easier to see it in organizations we've never been committed to. Then we can turn that insight toward the morg.

Did anyone here leave the mormon church because of how women and girls were treated? How did we deal in a male dictatorship? Do some mormon women feel this means they're entitled to be cared for and protected? Do some of them like trading off empowerment for entitlement?

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sexism, alive and well, is mostly
> overlooked by insiders and outsiders alike.

Oddly enough, I think most people just believe that churches are sexist and that things like all male clergy and leadership are just the status quo. The Catholic Church certainly believes in an all male leadership. That won't change until enough people make tangible efforts end it.

> Did anyone here leave the Mormon church because of
> how women and girls were treated?

That was one of many, many issues I had with TSCC while I was investigating.

I realize that most Catholics accept that women are not priests, but from my observations the Cathoics are way ahead of mormons in this area.

Sorry, but I personally think that allowing women to officiate communion as a very small difference between the LDS and Catholics. I would bet most priests view the communion ceremony as a rather dull and tedious that they would gladly hand off to women. After all, giving women the ability to officiate communion gives women no more real power, they are not really empowered in any way other than in a false sense. Seriously, women make up about 50% of the adult population, they should NOT have to settle for a symbolic gesture.

To me, allowing women to officiate over communion is a token gesture, or more likely brought on by the priest shortage in the Catholic Church.

http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/04/18/what-to-do-about-the-priest-shortage.html

Yeah, I know the article says the pope apposes liberalization, but we also know that churches don't always do or mean what they say.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would bet most> priests view the communion ceremony as a
> rather dull and tedious that they would gladly hand off
> to women. After all, giving women the ability to
> officiate communion gives women no more real
> power, they are not really empowered in any way
> other than in a false sense. Seriously, women make
> up about 50% of the adult population, they should
> NOT have to settle for a symbolic gesture.
>
> To me, allowing women to officiate over communion
> is a token gesture, or more likely brought on by
> the priest shortage in the Catholic Church.

Wow. I'm not sure what you mean by a woman "officiating" communion in a Catholic church, but it doesn't work that way. Women may hand out communion after the priest has offered the sacrifice, but no one other than a priest may consecrate the bread and wine before it becomes the body and blood of Christ. It's not a "tedious chore," it is the entire focus and purpose of the Mass. Catholics don't go to Mass to bear testimony or socialize or even necessarily to hear the Bible (though there is that). They go to receive Jesus Christ in person. "Communion" is the fullness of man meeting God. It is by no means the "token gesture" or symbolic rite that it may be in other churches. Catholics believe Jesus is present at/in Communion. It is a very solemn gift to be able to offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

Anon nevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would bet most> priests view the communion
> ceremony as a
> > rather dull and tedious that they would gladly
> hand off
> > to women. After all, giving women the ability
> to
> > officiate communion gives women no more real
> > power, they are not really empowered in any way
> > other than in a false sense. Seriously, women
> make
> > up about 50% of the adult population, they
> should
> > NOT have to settle for a symbolic gesture.
> >
> > To me, allowing women to officiate over
> communion
> > is a token gesture, or more likely brought on
> by
> > the priest shortage in the Catholic Church.
>
> Wow. I'm not sure what you mean by a woman
> "officiating" communion in a Catholic church, but
> it doesn't work that way. Women may hand out
> communion after the priest has offered the
> sacrifice, but no one other than a priest may
> consecrate the bread and wine before it becomes
> the body and blood of Christ. It's not a "tedious
> chore," it is the entire focus and purpose of the
> Mass. Catholics don't go to Mass to bear
> testimony or socialize or even necessarily to hear
> the Bible (though there is that). They go to
> receive Jesus Christ in person. "Communion" is
> the fullness of man meeting God. It is by no
> means the "token gesture" or symbolic rite that it
> may be in other churches. Catholics believe Jesus
> is present at/in Communion. It is a very solemn
> gift to be able to offer the sacrifice of the
> Mass.

Agreed. Communion is the entire reason for the mass.

That would be Cheryl. I was just responding to Cheryl as if she had a valid point about women officiating communion.

IF communion was handed off to women, it still wouldn't give women any more power.

If women presided over communion, they would be priests-same as male priests. As it is, women act as altar girls, distribute communion and give readings.They are denied the priesthood, but can do pretty much anything else men can do. I am not saying I agree, just explaining.There are also conservatives who would like to go back to the old days when women could do less

If changes are not made to what is and is not the responsibility of the priest, then yes, you would be correct. But if they changed responsibilities, they could have a priest give the mass and a woman preside ONLY over the communion ceremony without giving full full priesthood .

There is nothing that stops the RCC from redefining a priest's role in any way they want.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 08:25PM by MJ.

That would be Cheryl. I simply went along with what SHE said to make a point. If you have a problem with people claiming that women were given the ability to officiate over communion, take it up with Cheryl.

On the other hand, I've found a lot of women love the way they are treated by the church.

Some of them love the idea of not having to go to work, and baking cakes for their friends all day.

It's more the women that think "I want to go to work, I want to be in charge of people, etc." that will see sexism in the church. Some mormon women just love the church that way. This sounds shocking but it's true.

You really think Mormon women who don't work outside the home have time to "baking cakes for their friends all day"?

That certainly wasn't the experience of my mother or any of my sisters in law. My mother had 10 children, I bet she would have loved the time to do things for and with her friends. Instead she ran herself ragged doing all the things that made our family run: endless meals, laundry, cleaning, driving us to and from places (my father was especially restrictive when it comes to us kids driving), her church callings, playing the organ at every damn church function anyone had.

My sisters in law have fewer children, but they are pretty swamped too. A forty hour work week in an air conditioned office is a cake walk compared to what my mother went through.

There is no need to set women against each other....we stand together in the fight for equality. A woman who stays home to raise her children may have a daughter who one day grows up to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Should this woman's daughter make less money than her male predecessor simply because her mother was a sahm? Of course not.

Men should also be allowed stay at home to raise a family.

He's great witht the boys but he won't keep the house up. So it's back to work with him so I can finally get this house properly cleaned. :)

Mormonism caters only to white heterosexual males who are submissive in thought.

Always has and likely always will!

Watching my mom and two sisters - all very bright and capable - go down in flames after we joined the cult was pretty sad. Didn't have no internet back in them days, but I could still see that the cult's treatment of women and minorities just wasn't and still ain't right.

In mormonism, you have to wonder why god gave women a brain. After all, it doesn't take a whole lot of "intellect" to make and birth babies or let them suckle on a breast. Hell, if that's all women are good for, then just give me a Ronco Pocket Pusky attached to a test tube, incubator and milk bottle. That'll save me a bundle on anniversary cards alone!

Certainly don't want no dumb-ass woman edumacatin' my kids neither. They'll be f**ked-up enough as it is without no woman's help!

Of course, when I axed about such nonsense, I was told that we can't fully understand god's plan. Jeez, I wonder why!

God made woman so he could punish them. God made people of other-than-white skin so he could punish them. God made homosexuals so he could punish them. Yeah, sounds like a plan to me!

I'd sure hate to be Wanda Sykes!

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2010 10:23AM by Timothy.

Not all Catholics are ahead of the curve; if this one could look around the bend, he might see an angry mob of ladies bent on mayhem...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599202066700

>Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination.

>Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

Chalk one up for the LDS opposition to the ERA...

Scalia has always been a jerk.

It seems paradoxical but it's often true that behind every good priesthood holder is a good faithful wife. I've long wondered why women are often more regarding of priesthood than men are. I have one theory and it's NOT flattering to women- control. DW, IMO, subconsciously sees priesthood as a set of obligations on men toward women. In other words, priesthood is the God-spoken way I'm supposed to be and she can hold it over my head. Seriously- what do they talk about it priesthood? A mans priesthood duty. And what do they talk about in RS? A mans priesthood duty (OK, mostly joking).

Forcing them to be "worthy." Thanks, Amos!

And I was just a nerdy 16 year old girl at the time. Even then I had enough self respect to know that a loving God doesn't create sentient "wombs".

This actually had a lot to do with my leaving.

I remember asking my mom why the boys got to go camping and skiing and rafting, and the girls, I kid you not, got to get makeovers and pick out their future china patterns at ZCMI.

Then for a special treat, we got to get all dressed up in our mother's temple-ready wedding dress and have a fashion show. At the time it seemed so fun, but looking back, the idea of dressing 12 yr old girls up as brides makes me want to hurl...

My 5-year-old granddaughter and her "boyfriend" (same age) are both the children of TBM's. They frequently talk about "getting married" and what it will be like. TBM DIL not only encourages this nonsense, she thinks it's CUTE!!

I would have to agree that priesthood is used as a form of manipulation by lds women. I remember being at usu last semester and wanting to go out with some girl. I asked her friend for her #. I thought we got along well. Well, it must not have gone over as well as i thought or the spirit told her something that i'll never know cause she copped out using the only if he's a worthy priesthood holder line. I just wanted to hang out with anybody so i tried calling her and she never answered. That was one of the last straws for me as far as dealing with any mormon girl in any way. I avoid them like the plague now.

I finally got the courage to leave because I could not imagine raising my daughters in the oppressive environment that I was raised in. To me the words "traditional family", and the "proclamation to the world" is just code for "enslavement of women".

Right on persephene.

That's exactly what it is.

Cheryl

The horrid treatment of women and young girls is one of the reasons I left the LDS church. As a convert who had been raised to think for herself and speak her mind, it was icky not to be able to express myself the way I usually do. The most startling thing is how anxious most all LDS women are. They are so scared about not being perfect, if their families are not perfect. Not to mention how insecure most of the women are and would feel threatened when I a single woman would just talk to their husbands. I see it more now since I left since I still have LDS friends. I try to support them as much as possible by telling them not to be so hard on themselves and that God loves them exactly they way they are.

but I did notice it and didn't like it. I spent most of my childhood years with just my father and brothers so it wasn't as pronounced for us. I didn't notice it until I was a teenager and already on the way out.

I've always wondered how women in the church feel about the implied 2nd class status they have. Sometimes it isn't even implied but directly stated. Why are people willing to tolerate that kind of treatment?

What I can't understand is trying to get the LDS church to "allow" women to hold the priesthood. It's demeaning on so many levels. A) The church is false. It's a made-up batch of lies. Why would you fight for equal participation in a scam? And B) "Allowing" women to do this or that just smacks of condescention.

I'm not threatened by "Mens' Clubs." Maybe I have enough confidence not to be threatened by cliques. Or maybe I don't take to heart the ramblings of small-minded people who need to join groups to feel okay about themselves. Or maybe I just don't really care enough about corrupt organizations to fight for equal participation in them.

The priesthood is a terrible tool of control and subjugation. Why would any woman want it? Why would any man?