Wear Pants to Church Day

[Pheidippides]

Duderino, we need an "Oh, for Pete's sake!" emoticon. But this will do in the meantime:

In all seriousness, they are not worth my time. I find them to be intellectually dishonest more often than not, and if you bring a FAIR article to me as argument expect it to be dismissed without comment or consideration. You say FAIR, I see the Aliens guy from the History Channel.

This is not true for apologists generally. Bushman, for example, is most definitely an apologist and I very much respect what he has to say. Rough Stone Rolling is the book I most often recommend to friends.

[pellegrino]

Cardiac: Do you really consider the people at FAIR to be "mullahs?" I've spent some time there lately (I need to find someone who offers a thoughtful apologetic view; CUF doesn't meet that need ). What I see there is thoughtful stuff. In any case, "mullah" is a pretty offensive way to describe them. Maybe I'm just over-sensitive.

Pellegrino: You will probably accuse me of leaping to the church's defense, but do you really think the only reason for her paradigm is to reinforce patriarchy?

Though you didn't ask me the question, I agree with what SoCal said with regards to FAIR. First and foremost, they are apologists. It's in their name and their website adds that their goal is to defend Mormonism.

LA, believe it or not, if you're going to defend the church this is the way I would prefer you do it, not with oblique comments that could be taken either way. Ask direct questions, challenge premises, question conclusions. The issue isn't that you defend the church, it's how you go about it sometimes.

Now, I will concede that it is possible that she has another purpose behind the development of her paradigm, but given what the paradigm accomplishes, I don't know that it matters. The paradigm is nothing more than a defense as to why women don't have/need the priesthood. It is ill conceived and poorly supported.

Please understand, on the whole, I like the article, as it puts into discussion important issues and offers very good initial solutions. I just wish she had limited it to "Hey, there's a problem here, this is what it is, and if we're not going to give women the priesthood then there are some things that we can do better to include them." For some reason she had to delve into the question of why women don't have the priesthood, which is a shame, because I think it may cost her a lot of credibility among Mormon feminists.

[LA Ute]

In all seriousness, they are not worth my time. I find them to be intellectually dishonest more often than not, and if you bring a FAIR article to me as argument expect it to be dismissed without comment or consideration. You say FAIR, I see the Aliens guy from the History Channel.

This is not true for apologists generally. Bushman, for example, is most definitely an apologist and I very much respect what he has to say. Rough Stone Rolling is the book I most often recommend to friends.

I understand you approach and why you take it, but you cannot expect me to accept it. This board is full of very inteligent, highly-trained professionals and even some academics, many of whom display shockingly sloppy thinking quite often. Cardiac's and pellegrino's posts below are examples. Just my view. I still love youse guys, sloppy thinking or not.

[LA Ute]

Though you didn't ask me the question, I agree with what SoCal said with regards to FAIR. First and foremost, they are apologists. It's in their name and their website adds that their goal is to defend Mormonism.

LA, believe it or not, if you're going to defend the church this is the way I would prefer you do it, not with oblique comments that could be taken either way. Ask direct questions, challenge premises, question conclusions. The issue isn't that you defend the church, it's how you go about it sometimes.

Now, I will concede that it is possible that she has another purpose behind the development of her paradigm, but given what the paradigm accomplishes, I don't know that it matters. The paradigm is nothing more than a defense as to why women don't have/need the priesthood. It is ill conceived and poorly supported.

Please understand, on the whole, I like the article, as it puts into discussion important issues and offers very good initial solutions. I just wish she had limited it to "Hey, there's a problem here, this is what it is, and if we're not going to give women the priesthood then there are some things that we can do better to include them." For some reason she had to delve into the question of why women don't have the priesthood, which is a shame, because I think it may cost her a lot of credibility among Mormon feminists.

OK, good thoughts. I will endeavor to be direct and it was not my intention to be otherwise. I'm mainly trying to respond gently to very provocative statements (many of which seem reckless to me).

[Flystripper]

Just think about the effect that the announcement of women being able to serve missions at 19 has had. They're coming out in droves to preach the gospel.

That's nice an all but I think women would say why not 18?

[Pheidippides]

I understand you approach and why you take it, but you cannot expect me to accept it. This board is full of very inteligent, highly-trained professionals and even some academics, many of whom display shockingly sloppy thinking quite often. Cardiac's and pellegrino's posts below are examples. Just my view. I still love youse guys, sloppy thinking or not.

This smug response underscores the entire point better than anything I could have argued. You are FAIR on this board, which is unfortunate - I think pellegrino summarized the issue well. I don't you to accept my criticism of FAIR, but you can't expect me to take you seriously when you use them or argue as they do or in the methods pointed out by others.

[marsupial]

That's nice an all but I think women would say why not 18?

Also, why not two years?

Or even better why not 18 months for both sexes.

[pellegrino]

LA, I am curious as to what you thought was sloppy thinking. Is it simply because I reject her premises, or is it the mullah comment, Cardiac made? If it's the latter then I would suggest that the word choice was sloppy, not the reasoning behind it.

[Katy Lied]

I read through it all. She gives and excellent summary of the pain that women feel, and idenifying where that pain comes from, and then concludes by giving excellent suggestions about how to improve the current position of women without actually giving them the priesthood.

However, I found the middle section and her "cooperative paradigm" to be a complete load of manure, the dark stinky kind. She builds up an elaborate, and rickety framework differentiating between the church and "fallen world institutions" thus creating a silly dichotomy between "the world" and "God's Kingdom" when in reality "God's Kingdom" is every bit as fallen and imperfect as all of the "fallen world institutions" that she doesn't think we should be compared to because our paradigm is different than the world's.

I grow so tired of this false dichotomy of "the world" and "the church" and I wish Mormons would wake up and realize that WE ARE THE WORLD! WE POPULATE IT! The church is not exempt from the human condition.

I find the entire article contains no rigor at all, not just the middle section. Once she departs into thick description a la Theda Scocpol (denied tenure by Harvard because she was a woman otheirony), it might as well be a fireside chat.

[DrumNFeather]

This smug response underscores the entire point better than anything I could have argued. You are FAIR on this board, which is unfortunate - I think pellegrino summarized the issue well. I don't you to accept my criticism of FAIR, but you can't expect me to take you seriously when you use them or argue as they do or in the methods pointed out by others.

If both sides are merely looking for an echo chamber, then what's the point of trying to discuss things at all?

If the "progressives" (or whatever they call themselves) explain stuff away as FAIR apologist bullshit, and the "TBMS" (or whatever they are called) explain anything contrary away as "anti" then aren't we at a significant impasse?

Certainly there is room for discussion no?

[pellegrino]

I find the entire article contains no rigor at all, not just the middle section. Once she departs into thick description a la Theda Scocpol (denied tenure by Harvard because she was a woman otheirony), it might as well be a fireside chat.

I do think her description was accurate, she had good source material for it. Her suggestions for including women were good as well. If she had left it at that then rigor wouldn't matter much because she's not trying to be analytical, just descriptive.

[Katy Lied]

I do think her description was accurate, she had good source material for it. Her suggestions for including women were good as well. If she had left it at that then rigor wouldn't matter much because she's not trying to be analytical, just descriptive.

yes

[Omaha 680]

I grow so tired of this false dichotomy of "the world" and "the church" and I wish Mormons would wake up and realize that WE ARE THE WORLD! WE POPULATE IT! The church is not exempt from the human condition.

This part in my of your comment in my head was sung by large chorus including The Boss, Michael Jackson, and Dan Akroyd.

[Pheidippides]

If both sides are merely looking for an echo chamber, then what's the point of trying to discuss things at all?

If the "progressives" (or whatever they call themselves) explain stuff away as FAIR apologist bullshit, and the "TBMS" (or whatever they are called) explain anything contrary away as "anti" then aren't we at a significant impasse?

Certainly there is room for discussion no?

Not with FAIR so far as I am concerned. From others, yes. It may interest (or scare) you to know that I play that role in my ward.

[Bo Diddley]

Also, why not two years?

Or even better why not 18 months for both sexes.

But then how would that be a tithing of my first 2 decades? That sounds more like a tithing on net, not gross. Do you want net or gross blessings?