Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Mister Scratch]

And, while this is technically not true, I think we can all agree that wives are indeed dependent upon their husbands (in a way that does not apply vice versa) in order to enter the CK.  I.e., it is the man who summons up the woman to pass beyond the veil between this world and the next, not vice versa.

How does that make the Husband non-dependent on a wife for exaltation?

I never said it did. It merely demonstrates the gender inequity in the Church, which, let's face it, is what the criticism/"myth" was about in the first place.

Professor Peterson:

I'm grateful for your dissenting opinion, but whether one agrees or not, it is nonetheless the way things happen. The man goes first, and the woman follows. She is dependent upon him in order to pass through the veil between this world and the next. There can be no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[Jerubaal]

There can be no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I take it that since you have spoken, the thinking is now done?

You basically just said "Hey DCP, you disagree with, that's cool. But You're atill wrong! And there's no more room for discussion! Because I know I'm right!"

[Mister Scratch]

There is a certain order to things, and in this instance, the order is that the woman is dependent upon the man for entry into the CK. So, to a certain extent, the critics are correct.

I don't agree. I don't believe we have the full knowledge of what is going to happen or even enough to describe it as you said.

I think much of the relationship may be imagery restricted to mortal life, not the eternal one.

While this is a frequent reply on the forum, I find it inadequate. "We don't know," imo, doesn't cut it, because our argument and discussion on various facets of the Church depend primarily on what we do know. And in this case, we know. Can you provide authoritative text that demonstrates that the scenario is other than the kind laid out in the temple ceremony? I really don't see why it is so problematic for some that the woman would be dependent on the man for entry into the CK. If that's the way it is, that's the way it is.

[Calm]

And, while this is technically not true, I think we can all agree that wives are indeed dependent upon their husbands (in a way that does not apply vice versa) in order to enter the CK.  I.e., it is the man who summons up the woman to pass beyond the veil between this world and the next, not vice versa.

How does that make the Husband non-dependent on a wife for exaltation?

I never said it did. It merely demonstrates the gender inequity in the Church, which, let's face it, is what the criticism/"myth" was about in the first place.

Professor Peterson:

I'm grateful for your dissenting opinion, but whether one agrees or not, it is nonetheless the way things happen. The man goes first, and the woman follows. She is dependent upon him in order to pass through the veil between this world and the next. There can be no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

By your description, the husband will be summoned by someone else so how is this really any different than the woman's position? Both are being summoned.

[Mister Scratch]

There can be no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I take it that since you have spoken, the thinking is now done?

You basically just said "Hey DCP, you disagree with, that's cool. But You're atill wrong! And there's no more room for discussion! Because I know I'm right!"

That's not what I said at all. I would merely like to see some concrete evidence which totally undoes the sacred events described in the temple ceremony, some kind of text or authoritative utterance which indicates that things happen differently---i.e., that the woman is not dependent on the man for entry into the CK.

FWIW, my response to Professor Peterson was meant to be a polite disapproval of the fact that he presented no evidence. That's all. No mean intent, I promise.

[Calm]

There is a certain order to things, and in this instance, the order is that the woman is dependent upon the man for entry into the CK. So, to a certain extent, the critics are correct.

I don't agree. I don't believe we have the full knowledge of what is going to happen or even enough to describe it as you said.

I think much of the relationship may be imagery restricted to mortal life, not the eternal one.

While this is a frequent reply on the forum, I find it inadequate. "We don't know," imo, doesn't cut it, because our argument and discussion on various facets of the Church depend primarily on what we do know. And in this case, we know. Can you provide authoritative text that demonstrates that the scenario is other than the kind laid out in the temple ceremony? I really don't see why it is so problematic for some that the woman would be dependent on the man for entry into the CK. If that's the way it is, that's the way it is.

There are many women who receive their endowments without being married.

No husband....who's 'summoning' them into the CK in your opinion then?

If you insist that the mortal scenario must equal the eternal scenario (which is completely absurd in my mind, not a copout), then you must be consistent.

I personally don't care who I'm dependent on to enter into the kingdom any more than I care who my husband is dependent on, as long as I get there.

What I dislike is people trying to wrest what little knowledge we do have into something that demonstrates the so-called "gender inequity" you are so fond of.

[Mister Scratch]

By your description, the husband will be summoned by someone else so how is this really any different than the woman's position? Both are being summoned.

In the case of the man, he is summoned by God. In the case of the woman, she is summoned by her husband. As I understand it, the scenario described a sort of Celestial Hierarchy, or at least a kind of Celestial Chronology.

Let's remember the initial "myth," too, which is that women need their husbands' "permission." While this isn't true, it is true that women are dependent upon their husbands in a way that isn't true vice versa.

[Mister Scratch]

There are many women who receive their endowments without being married.

No husband....who's 'summoning' them into the CK in your opinion then?

If you insist that the mortal scenario must equal the eternal scenario (which is completely absurd in my mind, not a copout), then you must be consistent.

I personally don't care who I'm dependent on to enter into the kingdom any more than I care who my husband is dependent on, as long as I get there.

What I dislike is people trying to wrest what little knowledge we do have into something that demonstrates the so-called "gender inequity" you are so fond of.

As we both know, unmarried women become "attending angels" in the CK. They do not achieve full glory in the next life. I would say that HF is doing the summoning.

[Calm]

I am no more dependent on my husband for entering the CK than I am dependent on the doorman at the local 5 star hotel for staying there overnight.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm grateful for your dissenting opinion, but whether one agrees or not, it is nonetheless the way things happen.  The man goes first, and the woman follows.  She is dependent upon him in order to pass through the veil between this world and the next.  There can be no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

So, on your interpretation, if he didn't take her into the next world she'd stay in this one?

How did President Hinckley's wife manage to predecease him? I can't see how that could ever occur, if you're right. (Three of Joseph Fielding Smith's wives died before he did.)

I can see lots and lots of "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

But we can't discuss this in detail.

Incidentally, I did indeed present evidence. Irrefutable evidence, no less. You said that you thought we could all agree on your reading of the situation. By noting that I disagree, I proved your idea wrong.

[Calm]

As I understand it, the scenario described a sort of Celestial Hierarchy, or at least a kind of Celestial Chronology.

One that was put in place due to the fallen nature of mankind.

Why would this continue for perfected beings, beings that are in essence one?

How can there be "gender iniquity" when they are one (1 is less than 1)?

According to your scenario, single women are equal with men because they are summoned by God. How does getting married and being exalted somehow 'demote' them to your scenario of inequality?

As for what we learn in the temple ceremonies...are you claiming that we are taught that everything we learn there is literal and exactly as it happened and will happen and that there is nothing else to learn that could change our understanding of it all?

[juliann]

I find this idea that who gets to be first in line is of ultimate meaning in situation that depends on charity and humility for its existence quite fascinating. I remember that sort of thing in school...you know...the kids who names started with A always got called first, too.

[juliann]

"When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel

[kantgomo]

It is my understanding that the ladder mentioned in Scripture is Christ himself.

[MorningStar]

I think it's important, however, to bear in mind the initial "myth" listed by Pahoran:

That wives need their husbands' permission to enter the CK.

And, while this is technically not true, I think we can all agree that wives are indeed dependent upon their husbands (in a way that does not apply vice versa) in order to enter the CK.  I.e., it is the man who summons up the woman to pass beyond the veil between this world and the next, not vice versa.  There is a certain order to things, and in this instance, the order is that the woman is dependent upon the man for entry into the CK.  So, to a certain extent, the critics are correct.

The LDS women here have shown that your statement is not true.

Also, men do not summon their wives to the veil. You're confused. Let's see if you can figure out why you're wrong.

[Matt Andrews]

Cal...it is who gets on that ladder first that matters...not where it takes you. Get real. Get aggressive!

If it doesn't matter who gets on first, why does the temple ceremony make a special point of saying who goes first?

Maybe they should make the ladder two people wide (...or three, or four... Brigham and his wives should probably just get an industrial cargo elevator...)

[Smith]

Question - Who {physically} grants entrance to women into the celestial kingdom?

A - God

B - Her Husband

Just playin' along...

"and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there;"

[Mister Scratch]

The LDS women here have shown that your statement is not true.

Also, men do not summon their wives to the veil. You're confused. Let's see if you can figure out why you're wrong.

Actually, they haven't. They've shown that they believe otherwise, but no one has marshalled any textual evidence to disprove or undo what is laid out in the temple.

Also, re: the "summoning"---fine. But it is nonetheless the husband who draws the woman through. Right? He is a necessary step in the process.

Cal---

Of course single women are not on the same par as married men. Simply because the person doing the "summoning" is the same doesn't mean that the two people fulfilled their earthly missions in the same way. Unmarried women become "attending angels." They do not receive full Celestial glory.

I am no more dependent on my husband for entering the CK than I am dependent on the doorman at the local 5 star hotel for staying there overnight.

This is true. However, you are dependent upon your husband if you want fully Celestial glory. You can still get to the CK as an attending angel, if you decide your husband is no longer important to you.

[Pahoran]

Programmer---

I believe you've got me confused with someone else.

[Daniel Peterson]

They've shown that they believe otherwise, but no one has marshalled any textual evidence to disprove or undo what is laid out in the temple.

I, for one, feel no need to.

What you think is "laid out in the temple" isn't what I think is set forth there.

But I will not talk about this with you. Not here. Meet me in the temple, and we'll discuss it.

Pending that, we're at an impasse. There's you, on the one side, and, on the other side, there's every communicant Latter-day Saint on this thread and every communicant Latter-day Saint on the other thread.

There seems little point in continuing to repeat our positions.

And I probably would not be the only one who would be exceedingly offended if temple matters end up being discussed here in inappropriate ways, which seems a very real and not too distant possibility.

[Dunamis]

Do not push for temple discussions. After 37 pages this topic has had its day.