Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

822 Excellent

About Maidservant

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land
  • Birthday 03/04/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,962 profile views
  1. Home/Visiting Teaching to be discontinued

    They already changed it for the women, except for the name.
  2. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    I think I missed something earlier and why we might be talking past each other. The idea that men are not in the presence of God. Obviously, all people can be in the presence of God when they take that journey. Also a definition of God might be helpful here, or a definition of 'presence of God'. (Shekinah? or is that too much?) Someone else put forward the idea of one or the other of men (or women) being conducted into God's presence by the other gender. I do not think this is what occurs in real time (by either gender) (but?), but in the temple I am curious and have an understanding (at this time), that the position the woman plays IS AS God, or the presence of God, which I DO consider Mother rather than Father, Mother as taught in the scriptures and temple, in my understanding at this time. In other words, the woman is veiled not FROM God, but because she IS God, and thus must be veiled. Obviously, all genders also become (and already are) God--and together. Not only in marriages, but we all become Gods together as a whole mankind or at least church. But I don't think it helps to not see the female gendered symbolisms, just as it doesn't help to not see the male ones. There is a lot of gendered symbols and reality we work with, for better or worse. But people are so afraid that in the temple and scriptures, women are put under, and by the same symbols, I think they are put at the crown. Should they? Is it helpful? Is it real? Is it really about men-women or something else? I don't know. I like it :). Note: I think the entire endowment (rooms) are to be understood, at least on one level or map, as a womb.
  3. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    Agreed. As individuals. I think I am originally responding to people who said that the man was between the woman and God. I am saying--no one is between anyone and God. Exhibit A, one of my favorites: OT women and their revelations. Doesn't have to be OT. So agreeing with you. I haven't studied the D & C as much in my studying and pondering in terms of understanding the veil and the other temple symbolisms, including marriage. I guess that's next :). Just long pondering on the temple itself. Relevant? I think for me to answer that question . . . well, I'm always thinking my own things, so I guess I might say yes or no, but until I have it studied in depth, I couldn't answer. What do you learn from the D & C about these kinds of things?
  4. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    Sorry I missed this while I was writing. I am not talking about ancient marriage. I am talking about the symbols we think are perpetuating ancient marriage. I'm saying they aren't necessarily saying that. I can see them showing the opposite.
  5. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    Well, for me, ancient marriage is a sale of a human being (and slavery). So not a fan and do not consider it a reflection of a higher order. I was thinking more along the lines of not the marriage itself, but God and women having conversations of which the husbands were not necessarily a part. I do agree with you about marriage being mutual and all the pathway of progression before them. But this started with the idea of the meaning of the veil, and the place of women to their husband and God, and as it has been thought of one way (under both of them) because of certain symbols and ceremonies, I can see that flipped upside down the inverted way by the very symbols and ceremonies we take one way--and I'm saying--take it the other way, if you have to take it in an above-below way at all.
  6. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    Well, it is better to say that men and women constitute God together (as Genesis says explicity). However, if one must be designated, woman is the culmination of creation, not only on earth but in heaven. The Father serves Her. (Who else would he serve?) Again--the two veils in the temple are one. Also I have considered the veil in the Old Testament tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, and I am starting to think (still trying it out), that it is the Mother not the Father that visits--the veiled room, Holy of Holies. (Also I think of other realities-symbolism, such as women's blood being shed so that mankind may have life/be born). Part of the reason I assert these things is to challenge the idea that there is something (like a husband) between her and God. This is obviously not the case in the Old Testament, where women are acting agents every which way except in submission to husbands (they don't seem to have any submission whatsoever). Also I like that the OP article speaks of the head covering and/or veil (not sure if meant to be the same thing) are a sign of authority, but I think it misses the job of explaining a good reason why. In Genesis, woman is instructed to rule with her husband (check the Hebrew). Why? Perhaps because before she was ruling without her husband? In the temple, previously initiated men (Father, Son, +?) are providing this same initiation to an asleep man. What is the man being initiated into? Woman. Why? Because she is the God that there is. In real time, this is initiation is not actually done in the temple, it is done in daily marriage. A woman initiates her husband into the mysteries of life so that he may share them with her, which has to do with the way a woman's body works and brings forth life. She also initiates him into the principles and sentiments that cause this relationship to be celestial. Now, it doesn't mean that all women know how to do this (some of it is natural), nor does it mean that a man cannot find celestial principles without a wife. But until a man has bought sanitary napkins for his wife with a straight face at WalMart, there are some things he just doesn't know. (I'm using that as a facetious example to point to a larger set of knowledge and understanding and progression.) It is a man who must petition a woman for marriage, and it is she who determines his worthiness (for her) and grants him the opportunity for that priesthood. She grants him the opportunity to share HER posterity. She grants that his seed would continue. Anyway . . . it is these kinds of thoughts and realities that continue to lead me to the Mother, or rather Fathers as attached to Mothers (not the other way around), as the Elohim. I also think that the men-women stuff in the temple is less about men-women and more about our own progression of which the men and women represents parts and portions and whatnot.
  7. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    I find the temple to show the opposite case. Eve directs Adam throughout the entire narrative. In my understanding, she accepts counsel, because she is the decision maker, and it is good to have counsel before decisions. I also have considered that the covenants are stepping stones--that is you have a telestial covenant to begin with, but the result of the telestial covenant is that you only remain in that kingdom; if you want the celestial kingdom, you must progress beyond the telestial covenant. Gospel according to Maidservant. All men and women have priesthood and priesthood power due to their priesthood covenants. Men require ordination to exercise their priesthood. Also because they are being inducted into certain MALE orders of priesthood that have very specific functions (such as the gathering of Israel). Women enjoy the exercise of their priesthood without ordination (but also by covenant). I also love veiling. It's hard to say why. I have noted that there are two veils in the temple--in the room, and on the women--and that perhaps they are one and the same veil. Because they ARE the Most High God. The Mother IS the Most High God.
  8. End times doom and gloom

    To paraphrase another meme . . . what if someone threw a Doomsday and nobody came? We don't have to do it, by the way. We don't have to do a doomsday at all. We can all repent, and I feel that the majority of decent people all over the world are. We don't have to do anything but love, love, love, love, love each other--love our family, love our enemies, love everyone in between. Even in the scriptures, I think the doomsday is contingent upon if we DON'T repent, but what if we all do? I often think about the ancient punishment of casting stones. I sometimes think to myself that God would wait to see for the day when no one would pick up a stone. If we don't pick up stones, THEN NO ONE IS STONED. Even God can't make us stone a person. IT'S JUST US. God was probably hoping everyone would figure that out. (OT according to Maidservant.) God can't make us have a doomsday if we don't want to do it (for those who assume that doomsday is conducted under God's auspices).
  9. A book by the Church's history department was published a year ago, and now is announced to be online. It is a compilation of 54 talks (some with audio) that Mormon women from Emma Hale Smith, forward, have given. Again, all the compiled talks are now online. At the Pulpit
  10. Hi :). #3 I think what is the largest focus in the church is up to individual perspective and experience, because I would have said something else (i.e. sexual purity commandments). So maybe it's not so much what the Church focuses on as what is in large focus in our lives? I LOVE tithing settlement, and I see it as something much more than about money. I look forward to when my bishop prays (and some of them have knelt) over my family and unlocks the blessings of heaven for my family (for the next year). I count on that to the degree as I see it as a quasi-ordinance. I see this as the unlocking of miracles in my life. And for what? For my tiny mite. A lot of people start from the primary position that there is something dirty and unspiritual about money. But I understand money to be neutral, and it can be made spiritual just like ALL earthly things can be made spiritual. I also upside down the perspective that 'we get into heaven by paying money i.e. tithing' to--wow, we can be worthy of church blessings (NOT heaven) by the smallest and weakest thing, which is the imparting of 10 percent of what the Lord already gave us. We don't have to be perfect in anything. We just have to lay down a portion that's not ours to begin with. So God isn't asking us for ANYTHING. We complain about the 10 percent, but we don't hear God complaining about the 90 percent of HIS providence that he gave to us and that we are keeping and not giving back. I know this won't answer every question in your heart (keep knocking and asking! ), but these are some perspectives I've cultivated.
  11. A recent lds.org article that may be of interest to some, as Church finances are often a topic here. I would consider this an 'at the present moment' snapshot of how the Church is officially talking about their finances, from their perspective. An article, but it does have the video as well as a link to the full talk transcript. I also found it interesting that it was given at a symposium whose entire subject was the Church's economic history. Sweet. Presiding Bishop talks about the principles behind the church's financial freedom and abundance (my words)
  12. Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    A Course in Miracles is, as I recall (?), a claim of channeling Jesus. I don't have a problem with channeling (why not?) nor Jesus (why not?). Who am I to know? I wasn't there. I find the perspective in ACIM a little breathtakingly beautiful and healing, although I don't agree with it all. Again--it's not just the work to be evaluated. It's the claim. Sometimes these don't use the same issues and arguments and lines of thought. I actually take the tack when people tell me things happen TO ACCEPT IT as the primary position (because how would I know, it's not my experience), and only compelling contradictions (compelling to me) would cause me to NOT ACCEPT IT. Thus, if Joseph Smith said that he was not the author, perhaps your primary position would be that his claim was unacceptable until proven acceptable. (I don't know, is that fair to say?) I would have as my primary position that his claim IS acceptable until proven unacceptable (to me). I think either way is a valid approach. Who says we have to start with the unacceptable position? In fact, I think it is healthier to start with the acceptable position, because, again, we are dealing with human experience, and how do I know what people did and did not experience (until and unless I investigate further). For example, there is a statue of Mary in eastern Europe who does some kind of miracle or there is a woman who channels her. My FIRST thought is--sure, why not. How do I know, I wasn't at the statue? I ACCEPT IT. Now in this case, I read some of the words of the channeler and was not particularly impressed. Nothing that would make me even want to know more. I understand that many people's FIRST thought is--that could never happen. NOT ACCEPTED. But again, does it matter which position to start from? I like my way :). But is it okay if others are interested in appeals to authority? As well, is the insertion of God in the equation only to be framed as an 'appeal to authority' or is it okay if others view it as an appeal to an advanced Being who loves us and is interested in helping us? In other words, it's okay if you don't find any of that compelling, but does it mean that others can't formulate an argument around some things that many still do find compelling? I guess I read your further posts and saw where you were going with this, but funny, I was thinking Mormon when I read all this :). God wanted to give us the warning for our time to not completely slaughter each other.
  13. Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Perhaps already answered--but unlike the others, he CLAIMED it had another source. Did any of your others make such a claim, or were they claiming it as their own? So the claim may also be evaluated (as desired), not simply the text and 'author' itself.
  14. The creation of Eve

    Just in doing a quick search, I came across two Ensign articles that describe at least the rib portion of the narrative as figurative: In the Beginning Christ and the Creation If you google, you can find Spencer W. Kimball quoted as saying this also.
  15. The creation of Eve

    I think they can both be the case--the template and the real persons. One could likely hold both ideas comfortably. HOWEVER, I have not 'seen' that yet in what I study, that it is TWO real persons only. Even in the Pearl of Great Price it says that Adam means "many". Should I accept that? Or discard it? I accept it. For me, when I remove the concept that they are real, then there are more questions to ask and more light to find. For example--what if this planet has been inhabited endlessly, for cycles? Anyway--WE are real. We are the adams and eves. I am also quite tentative about ALL transmission issues, whether relating to this particular story or any scriptural presentation. In my understanding, the Old Testament was put together at a certain specific point in history, about 600 B.C. in my recollection (could be quite). I'm not even sure it was an authoritative collection, meaning did the Jewish people actually have the priesthood at that point?; although inspired and God works in mysterious ways anyway through imperfection. I'm not thinking that these collectors made it up whole cloth, that doesn't make sense to me either (but?)--on the other hand, I don't know how ANYBODY in 600 B.C. would know ANYTHING about the actual origin of man, any more than we do now (in terms of an accurate narrative; not speaking of archeology or anthropology or whatnot--but even those are bits and we make up a conceptual frame to contain the bits). They, themselves, would be relying on THIS ONE DOCUMENT (was it a document?), and legends and cultural cosmos ideas and so on. NOBODY SAW ANYTHING AND TOOK A PICTURE. Those 600 B.C. collectors are in the same position we are, in my mind, as to understanding/lack of understanding of where they are getting this stuff. OR--I don't know yet. This is still a hole in my study. But--they passed the material on, finding value in it (not necessarily history--did THEY think it was history? I really don't know) and we are still engaging with it. One can always appeal to revelation, and I'm fine with that, but my personal revelation as I engage with the material is leading me away from the 'real persons' thing--at least at this time. One could say, well, the prophets have had the revelation on it, so just eat it, but I really don't think that's how gaining understanding and being a Mormon works. I do acknowledge that many prophets have spoken of Adam and Eve as real and that I am thinking otherwise in the face of that, but I do like to read the scriptures plainly (which in this case, I consider the Adam and Eve story to be PLAINLY about not two people) and let me see where this takes me, ha ha :).