Droopy wrote:Bushman is a careful scholar and, as far as I know, a faithful member. You have here implied that he is open to the possibility that the entire origin narrative of his religion, as well as its devine ministerial authority (priesthood), which he himself holds, is a fabrication.
No, I didn't imply that. I stated that he acknowledges that the evidence can be taken in that way. That doesn't mean he
takes it that way. It does mean that it's perfectly reasonable for me
to take it that way.
Droopy wrote:He doesn't say that it does, but allows intellectually honest people outside the Church to follow what the evidence appears to suggest, from within one kind of intellectual template.
My point exactly. And as an intellectually honest person outside the church, I have taken the evidence to the conclusion that the ordination accounts were probably later fabrications.
Droopy wrote:No, I'm not wrong on any counts. I looked at all the evidence you posted, saw a few things that were improper and over-the-top on Will's part, some claims about him that were highly exaggerated and way overwrought, and other things that were clearly a psychological ploy, overwrought to the extent that I suspected a strong feminist streak in the author of the claims of "misogyny." Mysogyny, is, in the way you and others used it against Will, and like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobe," politically correct throwaway lines used to poison the well against existential ideological threats that one feels cannot be critically examined and your case made through rational argument.
Oh honestly, Droopy. Is there anything other than pure assertion and guilt-by-association rolling around in that head of yours?
Yes, misogyny is real, and it is the state of showing hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. When a man has a pattern of responding to women by invoking their sexuality, their appearances, and their bodies, or using harsh derogatory language for them like "____," "whore" and "c*New Testament," I consider that misogynist. That is what I documented in my thread.
It has nothing to do with being "Leftist." That's just a diversion on your part and one that I won't follow.
Droopy wrote:I don't even remember my participation in that thread.
Not my problem. You're the one trying to document your take on me here. Obviously you haven't constructed a careful and accurate picture of me in your own mind.
Droopy wrote:But you balked when I first made the claim a long time back.
Where was this?
Droopy wrote:So too you reacted when I openly claimed you had leftist, secularist views.
This one is false.
Droopy wrote:Now, you admit to being an "egalitarian," (i.e., socialist).
I have always
claimed to be egalitarian, and I deny that my application of the term is interchangeable with "socialist."
Droopy wrote:You are not "anti-Mormon," and yet hold views that would, if accepted, unravel the entire body of core truth claims upon which the Church is erected.
If that makes me an anti-Mormon, by the same token, your beliefs make you an anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-evangelical, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, and on and on. Merely disbelieving in the core claims of a religion does not make one "anti" that religion.
Droopy wrote:Until it becomes mind numbingly boring.
If I bore you, stop responding to my posts. I wouldn't mind a break from your incessant anti-Mormon-feminist-socialist-leftist-egalitarian witch-hunt.
Droopy wrote:Based on numerous positions you've taken in this forum, I think reasonable people could disagree with this characterization.
Name some of these people. (Hint: You are not a "reasonable" person in my book.)
Droopy wrote:Classic, textbook radical feminist intellectual categories (the mythical "patriarchy" standing in here for the "bourgeois" in an earlier template from which much of the philosophical substructure of second and third wave feminism was taken)
If patriarchy is a myth, you might want to write to your church leaders and tell them to stop promoting the "patriarchal order."
Let them know that there is no such thing.
Droopy wrote:So here, again, you are and you aren't.
I'm sorry nuanced positions are so hard for you to grasp. I think it's all very simple. Just as Mormons perceive themselves as "Christian" even though many Christians deny their Christianity based on this or that, I perceive myself as "feminist" even though many feminists see the pro-life position as fundamentally incompatible with feminism.
Some of my Mormon friends are cautious about openly identifying as "Christian" because they don't want other Christians getting in their faces and arguing about it. Likewise, I'm cautious about freely identifying as "feminist" because I don't like getting into pro-life/pro-choice debates with other feminists. Such debates are emotionally charged and seldom fruitful.
You want to call me a feminist though? Go right ahead. You seem to believe it's a de facto
dirty word whose repugnance requires no explanation. I don't share in your opinion.