Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[UtahDan]

That's a good point. I still see sexual relations, and chastity as far more central to the LDS tenet than determinations of who can speak in church (in addition, that particular issue, I'd venture to guess, is hopelessly entangled in the cultural norms of Paul's time). My point is not whether the Church should or shouldn't, but whether the Church will or will not. If BKP's speech is indicative of attitudes in the COB, I think I'm probably right. When dealing with the Church, astepping stone approach, rather than a revolutionary one, is probably the best way to effect significant change on the issue.

This is only because of your modern perspective. Women spent the first 1800 years or so of Christianity being the legal property of their husbands (actually, go read section 132 to see something that refers to women as property repeatedly) and having no rights or independent existence from their men whatsoever. Their role was never to contribute their thoughts or to teach, their role was to be meek and obedient mothers and house keepers. Paul said nothing novel when he said women should not speak in the church and people from his day until very recently would have been absolutely appalled that such a thing should be permitted. It is only very recently that women have been allowed to pray in a sacrament meeting. The ERA amendment was spoken of as something that would tare the fabric of society and destroy families.

I would say that the subservient role of women has been pretty fundamental and it only seems less central now because we weren't alive when the ground really shifted on this.

[Clark Addison]

Wow...do you guys really see this happening?

I can see the membership gradually moving towards recognizing civil marriages among non-members, but that next step is huge. I just don't see it.

I don't see it happening either, but if it does, the first place I will go will be Cougarboard.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't see it happening either, but if it does, the first place I will go will be Cougarboard.

Well done, Clark.

[thesaint258]

We haven't.

This is correct, at least according to a guy who explained the whole thing to me on a bus one day. You see, the Church is like the Starship Enterprise. Just like the Enterprise can separate into two sections but be one ship, the Church has separated, but it's really still one church. Take that for what it's worth coming from a homeless guy who was riding the 811 down to Provo and who claimed to have been kicked out of his 10 million dollar mansion after he made a bad investment.

[Moliere]

We haven't.

Give me back my drum!!

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=513

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...tml?id=6389936

[TripletDaddy]

This is only because of your modern perspective. Women spent the first 1800 years or so of Christianity being the legal property of their husbands (actually, go read section 132 to see something that refers to women as property repeatedly) and having no rights or independent existence from their men whatsoever. Their role was never to contribute their thoughts or to teach, their role was to be meek and obedient mothers and house keepers. Paul said nothing novel when he said women should not speak in the church and people from his day until very recently would have been absolutely appalled that such a thing should be permitted. It is only very recently that women have been allowed to pray in a sacrament meeting. The ERA amendment was spoken of as something that would tare the fabric of society and destroy families.

I would say that the subservient role of women has been pretty fundamental and it only seems less central now because we weren't alive when the ground really shifted on this.

Is that interesting that the Church vocally opposed the ERA?

At one point in recent history, the LDS Church opposed this:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

One of the main justifications for opposing the ERA? It would destroy traditional family values.

[Green Monstah]

This is only because of your modern perspective. Women spent the first 1800 years or so of Christianity being the legal property of their husbands (actually, go read section 132 to see something that refers to women as property repeatedly) and having no rights or independent existence from their men whatsoever. Their role was never to contribute their thoughts or to teach, their role was to be meek and obedient mothers and house keepers. Paul said nothing novel when he said women should not speak in the church and people from his day until very recently would have been absolutely appalled that such a thing should be permitted. It is only very recently that women have been allowed to pray in a sacrament meeting. The ERA amendment was spoken of as something that would tare the fabric of society and destroy families.

I would say that the subservient role of women has been pretty fundamental and it only seems less central now because we weren't alive when the ground really shifted on this.

Curious. When were women first allowed to pray in church? I remember hearing something about this in the past and I remember being shocked when I learned how recent it was (mid-70s maybe?).

I suppose if society shifts rapidly I could see the Church following suit a decade or two later.

[creekster]

One of the main justifications for opposing the ERA? It would destroy traditional family values.

That and uni-sex bathrooms. I remember a lot of people in my neighborhood being really worried about that.

[TripletDaddy]

That and uni-sex bathrooms. I remember a lot of people in my neighborhood being really worried about that.

ha. those "slippery slope" arguments sound awfully familiar, but I guess the fear was not misplaced....we are definitely seeing more unisex bathrooms these days.

Other ERA fears:

teaching in public schools would undermine family values taught at home
would alter the traditional role of women in the family structure
women could be "denied" the ability to be supported by a husband (how does that one sound today, ladies?)

[Paperback Writer]

Wow...do you guys really see this happening?

I can see the membership gradually moving towards recognizing civil marriages among non-members, but that next step is huge. I just don't see it.

Admittedly, this is a long-term view but the pace of change continues to accelerate.

One thing to ponder: A gay couple is legally married, perhaps is a family with children. They accept the gospel. So the legally married gay couple have to agree to stop having sex within their marriage before baptism while a hetro couple under identical circumstances gets to carry on?

Currently, I think the issue is marriage so a hetro couple is good as long as they are legally marriage. The LDS church has a convenient out right now in that gay marriage is not legal in most states. But I see that changing...and sooner rather than later.

Here's another long-term view or perspective. African-American wards as well as gay wards along with the current Single-Adult wards, Chinese speaking, Spanish speaking, etc. Maybe I'm just a visionary...or have just lost my mind.

[Sullyute]

This is only because of your modern perspective. Women spent the first 1800 years or so of Christianity being the legal property of their husbands (actually, go read section 132 to see something that refers to women as property repeatedly) and having no rights or independent existence from their men whatsoever. Their role was never to contribute their thoughts or to teach, their role was to be meek and obedient mothers and house keepers. Paul said nothing novel when he said women should not speak in the church and people from his day until very recently would have been absolutely appalled that such a thing should be permitted. It is only very recently that women have been allowed to pray in a sacrament meeting. The ERA amendment was spoken of as something that would tare the fabric of society and destroy families.

I would say that the subservient role of women has been pretty fundamental and it only seems less central now because we weren't alive when the ground really shifted on this.

From what I have read (Mark Ehrman), the role of women in the ancient church was actually just the opposite. Most scholars believe that women were held a very high role in the church and among Jesus disciples and followers. The first witness to Jesus' resurrection were women, despite women not being legal witnesses under jewish law. Also Paul specifically acknowledges women church leaders in some of his letters. Recent gospel discovereries (gospel of thomas, gospel of Mary) also put women in high regard.

Scholars also believe that the part of Paul letter where is states that women should not speak in church was added by a scribe at a later time. Also there is strong evidence that the duetro-pauline and pastorial epistles with their misogynistic language were not written by paul but just attributed to his name after the fact.

Many scholars believe that it was not until the second century that women began to lose their status in the early church.

[scottie]

Curious. When were women first allowed to pray in church? I remember hearing something about this in the past and I remember being shocked when I learned how recent it was (mid-70s maybe?).

I suppose if society shifts rapidly I could see the Church following suit a decade or two later.

My daughters hope that some day women will be allowed to pray in General Conference.

[Pheidippides]

That and uni-sex bathrooms. I remember a lot of people in my neighborhood being really worried about that.

Lol. Unisex bathrooms ain't no big thang. Been there and done that plenty.

[Pheidippides]

My daughters hope that some day women will be allowed to pray in General Conference.

Didn't that happen last general conference?

[Indy Coug]

My daughters hope that some day women will be allowed to pray in General Conference.

Will that make them shorter?