Are Patriarchal Blessings Valid

[Zoidberg]

It was scriptural however. Do you need a reference?

No thanks. CFR on the seed of Cain/Ham being the African race. Actually, it appears that the first humans were dark-skinned.

CFR about BY being confused.

CFR on blacks being the seed of Cain/Ham first. Then we can talk about whether he was confused or not.

CFR about embarrassing priesthood ban. It has never been embarrassing.

I've always considered it embarrassing. Here's GBH's reaction:

Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."

GBH: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history.

If you interpret what constitutes embarrassment differently than I do, I'm fine with that. I'd say most people would agree that this is an embarrassed person's reaction.

[Hammer]

No thanks. CFR on the seed of Cain/Ham being the African race. Actually, it appears that the first humans were dark-skinned.

Moses 5:40 And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord SET A MARK UPON CAIN, lest any finding him should kill him.

Moses 7:8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a BLACKNESS CAME UPON ALL THE CHILDREN OF CANAAN, that they were despised among all people.

Abraham 1:21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the BLOOD OF THE CANAANITES by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the BLOOD OF THE CANAANITES WAS PRESERVED IN THE LAND.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, WHICH SIGNIFIES THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang THAT RACE WHICH PRESERVED THE CURSE IN THE LAND.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to IMITATE that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but CURSED HIM AS PERTAINING TO THE PRIESTHOOD.

27 Now, PHARAOH BEING OF THAT LINEAGE BY WHICH HE COULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF PRIESTHOOD, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Notice that Pharaoh was a righteous man. Noah loved him and blessed him. But because of his LINEAGE, and for no other reason, he could not give him the priesthood.

CFR on blacks being the seed of Cain/Ham first. Then we can talk about whether he was confused or not.

I've always considered it embarrassing. Here's GBH's reaction:

Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."

GBH: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history.

If you interpret what constitutes embarrassment differently than I do, I'm fine with that. I'd say most people would agree that this is an embarrassed person's reaction.

I think you are seeing what you want to see, what feeds your needs for validation in criticizing the church. If you understand things as God does, you wouldn't have such a big problem with this issue.

Here is a link I found interesting:

History line

[Zoidberg]

I think you are seeing what you want to see

I think it's YOU who is seeing what he wants to see. All those scriptures - where did it expressly say that black people (as in the people who were denied the priesthood between 1850s? and 1978) were descendants of Cain? Just where? I can't offer you any definitive proof that black people aren't descended from Cain (at least none that you would find convincing enough). You are claiming that there is proof that they are, but there isn't.

what feeds your needs for validation in criticizing the church. If you understand things as God does, you wouldn't have such a big problem with this issue.

Should I interpret this statement to mean that you, Hammer, understand things as God does? I think you and I are about equal in this respect. Have you heard any statements from the modern prophet about black people bearing the curse of Cain? Why don't you produce them for me? Besides, have you forgotten Elder McConkie's statement: "Forget everything I have said, or what ... Brigham Young ... or whomsoever has said ... that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."? It appears that you are not following the spiritual counsel of the Lord's annointed, despite your "faithful" membership. (I get to remember what McConkie and BY said prior to 1978 because I don't claim to be faithful ).

Here is a link I found interesting:

History line

I've seen this website before. I doubt they share your point of view on who was their common ancestor.

[Son]

Doctrine and Covenants 121:36,37

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

So his authority is gone when the Spirit of the Lord is withdrawn. I guess the question is, when does this happen?

It happens as verse 37 says. It has happened to many Priesthood holders that still pretend to carry authority, or are ignorant to the righteousness necessary to be ordained and called of God.

[Hammer]

I think it's YOU who is seeing what he wants to see. All those scriptures - where did it expressly say that black people (as in the people who were denied the priesthood between 1850s? and 1978) were descendants of Cain? Just where? I can't offer you any definitive proof that black people aren't descended from Cain (at least none that you would find convincing enough). You are claiming that there is proof that they are, but there isn't.

Should I interpret this statement to mean that you, Hammer, understand things as God does? I think you and I are about equal in this respect. Have you heard any statements from the modern prophet about black people bearing the curse of Cain? Why don't you produce them for me? Besides, have you forgotten Elder McConkie's statement: "Forget everything I have said, or what ... Brigham Young ... or whomsoever has said ... that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."? It appears that you are not following the spiritual counsel of the Lord's annointed, despite your "faithful" membership. (I get to remember what McConkie and BY said prior to 1978 because I don't claim to be faithful ).

I've seen this website before. I doubt they share your point of view on who was their common ancestor.

Well if we are going to use the word modern and cut out the scriptures in the D&C, you have lost all respect from me.

If you want some new age thing fine. Go to another church. We are in the same dispensation as JS and living from concepts and teachings given then. I linked you to the history on blacks and statements were in there which pertained to the prophets statements right up to today.

You need to get the screw tightened up sir.

[Kenngo1969]

The Church constantly discourages abuse, but also constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, so they are just putting band-aids on the situation they themselves perpetuate.

Balderdash! Itâ??s amazing, though, how much the addition of a single word can change assertions such as the above: the word I would add is righteous. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constantly encourages women to submit to their husbandsâ??/fathersâ?? righteous leadership; thus, the Church does not perpetuate abuse, nor does it merely â??put[ ] band-aidsâ? on abusive situations.

Iâ??m sure you appreciate the clarification.

[Zoidberg]

Well if we are going to use the word modern and cut out the scriptures in the D&C, you have lost all respect from me.

If you want some new age thing fine. Go to another church. We are in the same dispensation as JS and living from concepts and teachings given then. I linked you to the history on blacks and statements were in there which pertained to the prophets statements right up to today.

You need to get the screw tightened up sir.

It's Zoidberg, ma'am to you, Hammer. And don't say bad things about my screws or get personal, lest ye desire that I report you to the mods. I care very little about getting any respect from you. You have not answered why you are ignoring McConkie's counsel to forget everything that has been said about "the seed of Cain" prior to 1978 (here's a big, fat clarification, once again: it is in no way obvious that any of the scriptures you cited were referring to the African race and not some other group of people). You have no right to try to take the mote out of my eye until you take the beam out of yours. So please tell me why you consider all those statements about the African race being the seed of Cain more important than the more recent counsel to forget them. That's kind of fundamentalist of you, my friend.

Balderdash! Itâ??s amazing, though, how much the addition of a single word can change assertions such as the above: the word I would add is righteous. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constantly encourages women to submit to their husbandsâ??/fathersâ?? righteous leadership; thus, the Church does not perpetuate abuse, nor does it merely â??put[ ] band-aidsâ? on abusive situations.

Iâ??m sure you appreciate the clarification.

What is righteous leadership, exactly? What are the necessary components of it?

[Kenngo1969]

What is righteous leadership, exactly? What are the necessary components of it?

You sound a little bit like that lawyer in the book of Luke who asked the Savior the question that prompted the Parable of the Good Samaritan: "And just who, exactly, is my neighbor?" I will, however, attempt an honest answer to what I assume is an honest question.

Well, righteousness would be indispensible to righteous leadership ... (Duh! ) I realize I'm talking about an ideal here, and I'm not prepared, nor do I care, to defend the myriad examples of unrighteous leadership (or of allegedly-unrighteous leadership) you're no doubt prepared to serve up, but ... As Son would no doubt tell us, it includes far more than just having the Priesthood; it includes honoring it; in matters where a righteous course of action isn't readily apparent (e.g., reading one's scriptures vs. not reading them, praying vs. not praying, etc.), it includes seeking the Lord's will for the person and not just saying, essentially, "What I say goes because I have the Priesthood"; it includes a genuine sense of caring and love for those being led; in the home, it includes both (or all) parties praying to know God's will, and for the courage to follow it once it is made known; it includes mutual honor among spouses, and among parents and children; it includes having the humility to counsel together and to pray for inspiration to recognize righteous counsel and for courage to follow it, even when the "counselee" might not want to do so.

[Zoidberg]

As Son would no doubt tell us, it includes far more than just having the Priesthood

So am I to understand that having the priesthood is a necessary component of a man's righteous leadership of his wife/family?

[Kenngo1969]

So am I to understand that having the priesthood is a necessary component of a man's righteous leadership of his wife/family?

I was right to invoke that comparison to the lawyer in Luke, wasn't I? My point was that no one has a right to exercise [unrighteous] dominion over someone else on the basis of the priesthood alone. I didn't say anything about those who don't have the priesthood.

[Zoidberg]

I was right to invoke that comparison to the lawyer in Luke, wasn't I? My point was that no one has a right to exercise [unrighteous] dominion over someone else on the basis of the priesthood alone. I didn't say anything about those who don't have the priesthood.

No, I'm no lawyer. I see your position and think it's valid, I just want you to be able to see and understand my position (which I don't think you currently understand). For you to be able to understand my position, I first need you to define your terms. When you say the Church encourages women to submit only to righteous leadership by husbands/fathers, do you mean that the Church encourages women to submit to the leadership of only those husbands/fathers who have the priesthood (along with all those other characteristics you mentioned)?

[Son]

In order to get a clear picture of the priesthood, one must qualify whether it is the mammonite version, or the Holy version.

The Priesthood observed today has become a right of passage.

The Priesthood as God ordains it carries with it Power.

What kind of Power?

Overcoming all iniquity, lightmindedness, eyes single to His glory. Keeping oneself unspotted from the world.

Being able to wield love, humility and kindness as simply as breathing.

son

[Zoidberg]

In order to get a clear picture of the priesthood, one must qualify whether it is the mammonite version, or the Holy version.

The Priesthood observed today has become a right of passage.

The Priesthood as God ordains it carries with it Power.

What kind of Power?

Overcoming all iniquity, lightmindedness, eyes single to His glory. Keeping oneself unspotted from the world.

Being able to wield love, humility and kindness as simply as breathing.

son

I agree with you, Son, but let's wait for Kenngo to answer my question on his terms.

[Hammer]

It's Zoidberg, ma'am to you, Hammer. And don't say bad things about my screws or get personal, lest ye desire that I report you to the mods. I care very little about getting any respect from you. You have not answered why you are ignoring McConkie's counsel to forget everything that has been said about "the seed of Cain" prior to 1978 (here's a big, fat clarification, once again: it is in no way obvious that any of the scriptures you cited were referring to the African race and not some other group of people). You have no right to try to take the mote out of my eye until you take the beam out of yours. So please tell me why you consider all those statements about the African race being the seed of Cain more important than the more recent counsel to forget them. That's kind of fundamentalist of you, my friend.

Okay Ma'am, go a head and tell on me for whatever. McConkie may be your god, but he isn't mine and he isn't the last word. You have chosen to take his one statement over all the others. That is your priveldge, but I don't believe it is a very enlighten thing to do.

[Zoidberg]

Okay Ma'am, go a head and tell on me for whatever.

I won't tell on you as long as you behave.

McConkie may be your god, but he isn't mine and he isn't the last word. You have chosen to take his one statement over all the others. That is your priveldge, but I don't believe it is a very enlighten thing to do.

McConkie is not my god by any means. I understand you think it's a good idea to heed to the counsel of the prophets and apostles, and you believe in continuing revelation, right? You are not currently cohabiting with more than one woman, are you? The most recent counsel concerning the claims you are holding on to from the GAs was to forget them, was it not? What's that "last word" you are referring to? Do you believe it's more "enlighten" to keep believing something completely unfounded, despite all the scientific evidence for the white skin tone appearing later than the dark skin tone, and the fact that the GAs themselves are being completely silent on the issue and show discomfort when asked for clarification?

[Kenngo1969]

No, I'm no lawyer.

One need not be a lawyer to act like the one who asked the question that prompted the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

I see your position and think it's valid, I just want you to be able to see and understand my position (which I don't think you currently understand).

Why not? What you said was pretty straightforward. Iâ??m reasonably intelligent. I have fairly good mastery of the English language. I donâ??t think I missed the context of the excerpt of your post that I responded to earlier in this thread. Contrary to the plain English reading what you said, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not, tacitly or explicitly, intentionally or not, condone priesthood holdersâ?? efforts to force those over whom they have stewardship to submit to unrighteous dominion.

For you to be able to understand my position, I first need you to define your terms.

You need me to define my terms so I can understand your position? While whatever you mean by that statement might not be backwards, what youâ??re saying seems backwards enough to me that Iâ??m afraid it would make my head hurt too much if I tried too hard to understand it.

In principle, if not in practice, â??righteousnessâ? is a fairly straightforward concept in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Typical Sunday School answers: read your scriptures; pray; do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love your neighbor as yourself; turn the other cheek; if one holds the priesthood, one should exercise it only persuading others with gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, and pure knowledge, which will greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile; if one reproves as a part of priesthood stewardship, one should then show forth an increase of love to the person reproved, lest that person esteem the reprover to be his or her enemy (see Doctrine & Covenants 121); and so on.

When you say the Church encourages women to submit only to righteous leadership by husbands/fathers, do you mean that the Church encourages women to submit to the leadership of only those husbands/fathers who have the priesthood (along with all those other characteristics you mentioned)?

The priesthood is not a sine qua non for the exercise of unrighteous dominion. The Church of Jesus Christ encourages men, both priesthood holders and not, to exercise righteous dominion, and encourages people within the stewardship of those men (women, children, people being led in general) to submit to righteous dominion.

[Zoidberg]

One need not be a lawyer to act like the one who asked the question that prompted the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Why not? What you said was pretty straightforward. Iâ??m reasonably intelligent. I have fairly good mastery of the English language. I donâ??t think I missed the context of the excerpt of your post that I responded to earlier in this thread. Contrary to the plain English reading what you said, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not, tacitly or explicitly, intentionally or not, condone priesthood holdersâ?? efforts to force those over whom they have stewardship to submit to unrighteous dominion.

Exactly, and you don't understand why I would think what I said because you think it's not true and/or I'm overgeneralizing, don't you? I can't recall any instances when the Church was overly encouraging men to boss women around; they don't need any extra encouragement in that. And they do a good job discouraging men from being abusive. When addressing men. However, the problem is that when talking to women, especially young women, all they address are positive scenarios; priesthood holders leading their families in righteousness; if they are not acting responsibly, show them that you depend on them to remind them of their patriarchal responsibilities; even if your daddy is not a member of the Church, he's still entitled to stewardship and you should sustain him in his presiding role. There are no instructions (or even consideration of the possibility) for the case in which your daddy one day wants to have sex with you without being provoked and against his family's best interests. Take a look at some of the YW lessons here: http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

Ways to Support Fathers

Be obedient

Spend time together

Share concerns and interests

Ask for a fatherâ??s blessing

Seek his advice and counsel

Get to know him

Set a good example to brothers and sisters

Give him love and appreciation

Build up, not tear down

Support him in family home evening

Be cheerful and helpful in the home

So, with all that in mind, when the father does something you perceive as bad to you, what would your reaction be?

Here's another one:

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

This one has got some interesting definitions:

Support: â??to promote the interest or cause ofâ? or â??to uphold or defend as valid or right: advocate.â?

Sustain: â??to give support or relief to.â?

So you are supposed to defend your priesthood leaders (the most immediate being your father, if he has the priesthood) as valid or right. What if they do something that's wrong? This possibility is not given any consideration; the impact of women's positive examples and their influence of the priesthood holders, on the other hand, is emphasized; so if someone is treating you like dirt, wouldn't you think you've failed at providing a positive example for them by exhibiting proper behavior/proper standards?

Here's another one: http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

The question "how should a husband regard his wife?" is asked only once; the answers that will follow are likely to be positive and vague answers (like "with respect" istead of "he shouldn't manipulate her into submission by dangling his priesthood in front of her"). In case study 1, the girl is advised to "change her attitude" and stop being "pushy". She is told to show support to the priesthood holders before they even exhibit any behavior worthy of support. In case study 2, the solution is that the girl should not only sacrifice her plans for the sake of those of the priesthood holders in her family, but do it "willingly and cheerfully instead of begrudgingly". And then you're surprised to find out that a girl who was taught that in YW has been sexually abused for years, and smiled and maintained a positive attitude through all those years, supporting and sustaining her father?

Another pearl from the same lesson (on how a YW should treat a YM who holds the priesthood and, ultimately, her husband): Be a counselor, when asked. So if you are not asked, just sit there and shut up? Here's one more: Treat him as you want him to become. So the logical conclusion is: if you want your husband or some other priesthood leader to not abuse you, treat him as though he's not abusing you. Yes. That helps tremendously.

Ken, you're a guy, right? I know what you were taught in Church when you were a teenager (if you were a member as a teenager). You were given a lot of examples of boys behaving in a negative way and told why you shouldn't act that way. That's not what the girls were being taught. They were and are not being prepared for the possibility that priesthood holders (or fathers/husbands) may want to exercise "unrighteous dominion". I really suggest that you take a look at those lessons. Then you will understand why I said what I said and why I am justified in saying that.

[Kenngo1969]

There are no instructions (or even consideration of the possibility) for the case in which your daddy one day wants to have sex with you without being provoked and against his family's best interests.

Without being provoked and against his familyâ??s interests? Are you serious? If I were even to suggest that provocation or enticement might be a possibility, I would be roundly castrâ?? Um, I mean, castigated, and rightly so. (Good thing thereâ??s a double-standard and that youâ??re a woman, Zoid! )

The purpose of lessons is to teach rules, not to cover exceptions. Youâ??re seriously positing that we should replace lessons on such topics as faith, repentance, honoring parents, being righteous mothers and fathers, and so on with such topics as â??What to do if your father tries to molest youâ?? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints treats the latter topic as an exception because it is, well, an exception.

And we have a hard enough time keeping our lay teachers on topic as it is: too often, they want to interject such topics as polygamy when the lesson is about faith; youâ??re seriously positing that they could handle Young Women Sunday School Lesson 14, â??What to do if your father tries to molest youâ? without creating mass hysteria among young women, let alone their parents? No offense, but God help us if you ever end up on the Curriculum Committee! It mightâ??and I say this with a thousand qualifications and reservationsâ??be a topic suitable for a special fireside.

Young Women Lesson Topics/Advice Zoid Finds Troublesome

Be obedient

If the Church of Jesus Christ were encouraging fathers to give unrighteous counsel, then encouraging young people to be obedient to such counsel might be a problem.

Spend time together

If the Church of Jesus Christ were encouraging fathers to engage in unwholesome activities with their sons and daughters, then encouraging young people to spend time with their fathers might be a problem.

Share concerns and interests

See my response under â??Be obedient,â? above.

Ask for a fatherâ??s blessing

If a father isnâ??t in tune, is exercising his priesthood unrighteously, or doesnâ??t have his childrenâ??s best interests at heart, then this might be a problem. The Church, however, encourages fathers to be in tune, to exercise their priesthood righteously, and to have their childrenâ??s best interests ever uppermost in their minds.

Seek his advice and counsel

See my response under â??Be obedient,â? above.

Get to know him

Thereâ??s certainly enough alienation between parents and children in this world that I canâ??t possibly see how that could be bad advice. My father certainly isnâ??t perfect (what father is, or for that matter, what son or daughter is?), and we have had our share of alienation, but I am privileged to know him. (Yes, I know this isnâ??t the case with all fathers: see my response under â??Give him love and appreciation,â? below.)

As often as my dad uncorks a story that is old enough to have fermented many times over and I sigh, roll my eyes, and say, â??This is #12,675 â?¦ for the 8,495th time!â? every once in awhile he uncorks one I havenâ??t heard before â?¦ like this morning, when he regaled us with the tale of how he, as an Army Military Police officer stationed in Germany, responded to a report of a bar fight and accidentally shot a fat lady in the leg â?¦

Set a good example to brothers and sisters

There are certainly enough bad examples among peers and siblings, arenâ??t there?

Give him love and appreciation

Supposing oneâ??s father were an absolute scoundrel with no redeeming qualities whatsoever â?¦ if that were true of my father, Iâ??d still have to give him credit (and yes, even a certain amount of love and appreciation) since without him, I wouldnâ??t be here.

Build up, not tear down

If fathers werenâ??t getting this same adviceâ??if the Church of Jesus Christ advocated a double standard that said, â??Itâ??s OK for your father to tear you down, but you should build him upâ?â??Iâ??d be worried; but they are, and itâ??s not, so Iâ??m not.

Support him in family home evening

So, thereâ??s something wrong with Family Home Evening? If you ask me, the only thing wrong with it is that families donâ??t hold it enough in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Be cheerful and helpful in the home

If fathers werenâ??t getting this same adviceâ??if the Church of Jesus Christ advocated a double standard that said, â??Itâ??s OK for your father to be grouchy and unhelpful, but you should be cheerful and helpfulâ?â??Iâ??d be worried; but they are, and itâ??s not, so Iâ??m not.

* * *

] So, with all that in mind, when the father does something you perceive as bad to you, what would your reaction be?

Iâ??d be disappointed in him, to say the least. I wouldnâ??t have the kind of relationship with him that Iâ??d want. But I certainly wouldnâ??t blame that on the Church of Jesus Christ.

So you are supposed to defend your priesthood leaders (the most immediate being your father, if he has the priesthood) as valid or right.

Sigh! And weâ??re right back where we were when I first chimed into this discussion, Zoid! People arenâ??t â??validâ? or â??rightâ?: if I said to you, â??You know, Zoid, youâ??re invalid,â? the expected (and proper) response would be â??Who the heck are you? Go take a long walk off of a short pier!â? Their actions may be right or wrong, valid or invalid. Yes, family members should sustain and encourage the righteous exercise of the priesthood. (â??Righteous,â? if you recall, being the necessary word I said you omitted when I excerpted your post earlier in this thread â?¦) Round, and round, and round she goes!

What if they do something that's wrong?

One can support priesthood leaders without supporting all of their actions.

This possibility is not given any consideration.

Yes it is; it just isnâ??t made the topic of Young Womenâ??s Sunday School Lesson 14, which is what you really want. That â??possibilityâ? is an exception; itâ??s not the rule. You want the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ to approach exceptions the same way they approach rules. That ainâ??t gonna happenâ??unless youâ??re called to the Curriculum Committee, and it probably wonâ??t happen even then. Sorry to disappoint you.

â?¦ the impact of women's positive examples and their influence of the priesthood holders, on the other hand, is emphasized â?¦

Why shouldnâ??t it be? The impact of that â??positive example and influenceâ? on a righteous Priesthood holder is huge. The female of the species seems not only content, but also downright bound and determined, to ignore me. If one of them were to direct any positive, perhaps amorous, attention my way, she would be amazed at the lengths to which I would go to please (and to avoid disappointing) her, and I think is true of most men. This reminds me of the women who call â??Dr. Lauraâ? and say, â??My man doesnâ??t do this, and my man doesnâ??t do that,â? (e.g., do the dishes, pick up his clothes, et cetera). You know what her response is? â??Use your power.â?

â?¦ so if someone is treating you like dirt, wouldn't you think you've failed at providing a positive example for them by exhibiting proper behavior/proper standards?

No. If a man is determined to use his agency unwisely, it might not make a difference how many positive examples he has. Thereâ??s no denying that many women blame themselves when their loved ones fail them, but the Church of Jesus Christ doesnâ??t teach them to do that.

The question "how should a husband regard his wife?" is asked only once; the answers that will follow are likely to be positive and vague answers (like "with respect" istead of "he shouldn't manipulate her into submission by dangling his priesthood in front of her").

So â?¦ you think, if a man has high regard for his wife and treats her with respect, thereâ??s still the possibility that he might try to â??manipulate her into submission by dangling the priesthood in front of herâ?? I donâ??t.

Zoid, Iâ??m sorry I didnâ??t address your remaining examples, but I already told you that I wouldnâ??t defend the myriad examples you were no doubt prepared to trot out of men who didnâ??t honor/misused their priesthood. The fact remains, at the same time young women are being taught the things theyâ??re being taught in the Church of Jesus Christ, priesthood holders are being taught to respect their children, to honor them, to live so as to be able to exercise the priesthood honorably, and to exercise the priesthood honorably in their behalf.

You may be confused about rules and exceptions in the Church of Jesus Christ, Zoid, but I am not.

[Zoidberg]

You may be confused about rules and exceptions in the Church of Jesus Christ, Zoid, but I am not.

Yes, I'm the one confused. I make a statement:

The Church constantly discourages abuse, but also constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, so they are just putting band-aids on the situation they themselves perpetuate.

Then you show up and start having problems with my statement and "clarifying". And now that we have defined the terms a little bit, you are the one talking about rules and exceptions and how I am confused about them! You've just admitted yourself that as a rule the Church constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership and that

The purpose of lessons is [...] not to cover exceptions.

So they are only covering the "rules" (where the father/husband is presumed to be "righteous") and not mentioning any exceptions at all. Which you have conceded to. Now read my statement again:

The Church constantly discourages abuse, but also constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, so they are just putting band-aids on the situation they themselves perpetuate.

Because they are not addressing the exceptions, they are encouraging women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, period, which is precisely what I said. Are you still having problems with my position?

[Kenngo1969]

You've just admitted yourself that as a rule the Church constantly encourages women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership â?¦

You keep on taking one word out, which completely changes the equation. As long as you keep on taking that word out, Iâ??ll keep on putting it back in. Itâ??s only one word, but it makes a world of difference: That word is righteous. The Church of Jesus Christ constantly encourages women to submit to their husbandsâ??/fathersâ?? righteous leadership.

So they are only covering the "rules" (where the father/husband is presumed to be "righteous") ...

Wow. Thereâ??s a gender-based presumption of righteousness in the Church of Jesus Christ? Then why spend so much time discussing the rules with men at all? If Iâ??m presumed to be righteous, such discussion is just superfluous, isnâ??t it? (Personally, I prefer your approach: getting into the Celestial Kingdom will require much less work that way! )

â?¦ and not mentioning any exceptions at all. Which you have conceded to.

No, I â??conceded toâ? no such thing. I never said that the exceptions should simply be ignored: I simply said we shouldnâ??t create hysteria by making a situation that doesnâ??t apply to the vast majority of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ the subject of lesssons intended for the general membership or segments thereof, i.e., young women.

Because they are not addressing the exceptions â?¦

No, they are addressing the exceptions: theyâ??re just treating them like the exceptions they are by not making them the subject of lessons for the general Church membership or some segment thereof when such subjects donâ??t apply to the vast majority of members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Because they [Church leaders] are not addressing the exceptions, they are encouraging women to submit to their husbands'/fathers' leadership, period, which is precisely what I said. Are you still having problems with my position?

Yes, because you keep on taking that oh-so-critical word out. As long as you do, Iâ??ll keep on putting it back in: leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ encourage people within the stewardship of priesthood leaders to submit to the righteous leadership of those leaders.

[Kenngo1969]

Another pearl from the same lesson (on how a YW should treat a YM who holds the priesthood and, ultimately, her husband): Be a counselor, when asked. So if you are not asked, just sit there and shut up?

It must be torture for you to sit through lessons that are in the curriculum of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You just sit there waiting to make the curriculum writers and/or the teachers offenders for a word by reading things into lessons that simply arenâ??t there. The general principle if you are seeking to counsel someone elseâ??and this applies to anyoneâ??is to do what you can to ensure that the person you are counseling will be receptive to your counsel. Yes, one way to do that is to await an invitation to offer such counsel. The lesson says nothing about â??just sit[ting] there and shut[ting] up.â?

Here's one more: Treat him as you want him to become. So the logical conclusion is: if you want your husband or some other priesthood leader to not abuse you, treat him as though he's not abusing you. Yes. That helps tremendously.

Thatâ??s why I say that the purpose of lessons is to cover rules, not exceptions, and why I say the critical word when it comes to submitting to priesthood leadership is righteous. The priesthood leader who engages in abuse is not exercising the priesthood righteously. The lesson, because its purpose is to treat rules and not exceptions, assumes that a young man who is treated as a young woman hopes he will become will be responsive to a young womanâ??s implicit or explicit exhortation to righteousness. Your experience with men has probably been vastly different, and Iâ??m sorry about that. But, as for me and most of the priesthood holders I know, the influence of a righteous woman availeth much when it comes to helping us be the kind of men we know we ought to be.

Ken, you're a guy, right? I know what you were taught in Church when you were a teenager (if you were a member as a teenager). You were given a lot of examples of boys behaving in a negative way and told why you shouldn't act that way.

Granting the truth of that assertion for the sake of discussion (your description of the lessons is a tad bit simplistic, and I donâ??t recall you being in attendance at any of the lessons I received; would I recognize you if I saw a picture? ) this is bad â?¦ how?

That's not what the girls were being taught. They were and are not being prepared for the possibility that priesthood holders (or fathers/husbands) may want to exercise "unrighteous dominion".

Because thatâ??s an exception and not a rule. Rules can be taught to the masses, but exceptions have to be handled one-to-one and usually face-to-face. The Church has always taught me as a priesthood holder to exercise only righteous dominion.

I really suggest that you take a look at those lessons. Then you will understand why I said what I said and why I am justified in saying that.

You must sit there on the edge of your seat with â??bated breath in talks and lessons, waiting to make curriculum writers, teachers and speakers offenders for a word by reading things into the lessons that simply arenâ??t there. Thatâ??s why, no, I donâ??t believe youâ??re justified in what you said.

[Zoidberg]

Thatâ??s why, no, I donâ??t believe youâ??re justified in what you said.

Hmm. Okay. Let me ask you this: why is it okay to only address the general rule for the Church, but not for Zoidberg? They hardly ever emphasize the "righteous" part in the lessons, unlike you. Given that you actually think that victims of incest may in some cases somehow be responsible for provoking the abuse, I probably shouldn't expect much from you. I don't hold a different standard for men and women. There are plenty of male victims of various kinds of abuse; it is often an even bigger stigma for male victims of sexual abuse to speak out, which is why the cases where the victims are male are grossly underreported. I was addressing a specific case of abuse of females by males within this particular church, however. I don't know if you have ever been abused by your parents. Hopefully, you haven't. But let me tell you this: when everyone around emphasizes the importance of obeying your parents, honoring them, etc.; when everybody tells you that your parents are looking out for your best interests and protect you from strangers (it's always the strangers everybody's afraid of; a stranger has never done anything to me); when everybody who knows your parent tells you what a wonderful person they are, and when you don't know what is appropriate for you as a punishment and what isn't, it is very hard to even realize you're being abused; and everybody likes your parent so much, nobody is going to believe you if you tell someone what's happening. Hopefully, you are making these remarks only because you have never encountered abuse in your life. If so, I hope it stays that way for you.

[Son]

This whole conversation is abusive.

You both know the answer, righteousness is just that, anything else is selling something, and neither of you are buying.

Those that live the principles and doctrines will of necessity have fruit. Those that don't won't.

Who cares what the accepted hypocrisies dictate.

The church teaches walk the walk. It does not force people to do it. All the members have the freedom to be whatever they wish, hide their secret sins, and do to whom they wish to harm, I am sure the church does not endorse the abuse of others.

son

[cartoon bluejay]

No, they are addressing the exceptions: they’re just treating them like the exceptions they are by not making them the subject of lessons for the general Church membership or some segment thereof when such subjects don’t apply to the vast majority of members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

According to womenofsubstance.org, 38% of girls under the age of 18 are sexually abused. I am someone who has studied psychology and taken some graduate work courses in marriage and family therapy - I believe the percentage is much higher. There is no reason to believe that the statistic is lower among girls who are LDS When I see statistics like this glaring at me - in my mind, this warrants a lesson with this subject in mind. I have to admit that when I was serving in the YW presidency and saw a lesson on how to write letters to the missionaries - I tossed that lesson out and taught a lesson on abuse. These YW and YM need to be educated about this subject. Too many of them are faced with this reality -

Zoidberg hit the nail on the head with this

But let me tell you this: when everyone around emphasizes the importance of obeying your parents, honoring them, etc.; when everybody tells you that your parents are looking out for your best interests and protect you from strangers (it's always the strangers everybody's afraid of; a stranger has never done anything to me); when everybody who knows your parent tells you what a wonderful person they are, and when you don't know what is appropriate for you as a punishment and what isn't, it is very hard to even realize you're being abused; and everybody likes your parent so much, nobody is going to believe you if you tell someone what's happening.

This was my experience growing up - I had an amazing father who EVERYONE loved - but inside our home he was abusive... I didn't tell anyone for the very reasons Zoidberg describes. I've been thinking a lot about "Dominion" righteous or unrighteous... I can't pull together what I think about it.

I have read many YW lessons - they DO NOT prepare girls for reality. Personally, I think the church could step up and stop painting a rosy picture of what righteous homes look like and start educating people how to deal with what is actually going on. 38% of girls sexually abused - there's more that are physically abused and emotionally abused - that's at least 50% of our YW in that situation. It's no exception.

Edited for punctuation

[Hammer]

I won't tell on you as long as you behave.

McConkie is not my god by any means. I understand you think it's a good idea to heed to the counsel of the prophets and apostles, and you believe in continuing revelation, right? You are not currently cohabiting with more than one woman, are you? The most recent counsel concerning the claims you are holding on to from the GAs was to forget them, was it not? What's that "last word" you are referring to? Do you believe it's more "enlighten" to keep believing something completely unfounded, despite all the scientific evidence for the white skin tone appearing later than the dark skin tone, and the fact that the GAs themselves are being completely silent on the issue and show discomfort when asked for clarification?

Facts do not always constitute truth. I beg of you, please get it straight and stop making up accusations to validate your heretical beliefs.