Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Are Patriarchal Blessings Valid


Zoidberg

Recommended Posts

"Righteous dominion" is a phrase one might use to describe the relationship between a dog and its owner, or a slave and his master. Its use with respect to marital relationships between two human beings is archaic and blatantly sexist. It belongs in the past, side by side with the ancient belief that women fill the ontological gap between man and beast. And adding "righteous" to the word "dominion" doesn't make the notion of male spousal domination any less offensive to modern sensibilities. To exercise dominion is to exercise rule, domination, control. Whether or not one is exercising dominion "righteously," domination has no place in a healthy spousal relationship. It is shameful that the LDS church actively encourages such a harmful and anachronistic norm.

Link to comment

Facts do not always constitute truth.

:P So it's not a fact that that the Church is true?

I beg of you, please get it straight and stop making up accusations to validate your heretical beliefs.

<_< Who have I accused?

"Righteous dominion" is a phrase one might use to describe the relationship between a dog and its owner, or a slave and his master. Its use with respect to marital relationships between two human beings is archaic and blatantly sexist. It belongs in the past, side by side with the ancient belief that women fill the ontological gap between man and beast. And adding "righteous" to the word "dominion" doesn't make the notion of male spousal domination any less offensive to modern sensibilities. To exercise dominion is to exercise rule, domination, control. Whether or not one is exercising dominion "righteously," domination has no place in a healthy spousal relationship. It is shameful that the LDS church actively encourages such a harmful and anachronistic norm.

Yes, the whole notion that you can preside over someone while simultaneously being equal to them is ridiculous; if people want to hold on to it though, I'm fine with that. As long as they don't make me do it. But they shouldn't make children feel inferior for thinking their primary role in life might be something other than to support, sustain and reproduce.

Link to comment

"Righteous dominion" is a phrase one might use to describe the relationship between a dog and its owner, or a slave and his master. Its use with respect to marital relationships between two human beings is archaic and blatantly sexist. It belongs in the past, side by side with the ancient belief that women fill the ontological gap between man and beast. And adding "righteous" to the word "dominion" doesn't make the notion of male spousal domination any less offensive to modern sensibilities. To exercise dominion is to exercise rule, domination, control. Whether or not one is exercising dominion "righteously," domination has no place in a healthy spousal relationship. It is shameful that the LDS church actively encourages such a harmful and anachronistic norm.

Thank you so much for being able to put my thoughts into words. I was up all night thinking about this word "dominion" and how it has no place in the eternal relationship between a man and a woman. IMO, it has no place on earth nor in the eternities. I've thought a lot about how I'm, personally, supposed to become a God with an eternal partner - I can't be an equal partner if someone has any kind of dominion over me (righteous or unrighteous). There's more but it's just that word "dominion" - thank you.

BTW, I love your avatar.

Link to comment
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.

I never said itâ??s OK to address the general rule for the Church while ignoring the exceptions, a point Iâ??ve made several times now. What I have said is that while rules can be taught en masse, exceptions have to be handled differently, usually one-to-one and face-to-face. (I donâ??t think youâ??d be very comfortable sitting in a class on â??What to do when your father tries to molest youâ? if you, hoping to find commonality with the others in the class, were to disclose that you were molested, only to find out that youâ??re the only one in that class of whom that is true.)

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.

You must be reading every other word of my posts. I never suggested such a thing, and your assertion that I did is offensive. Iâ??ll thank you to knock it off, and Iâ??ll accept an apology from you anytime youâ??re ready to extend one.

I don't hold a different standard for men and women.

But you think the Church of Jesus Christ, does, though, and thatâ??s what concerns me.

I don't know if you have ever been abused by your parents. Hopefully, you haven't.

I havenâ??t but that doesnâ??t stop me from deploring and condemning abuse under any circumstances, within the Church of Jesus Christ or without, by members of the Church or by nonmembers.

when everyone around emphasizes the importance of obeying your parents â?¦

Parents arenâ??t perfect. If everyone were to use the fact that parents do things wrong as an excuse to not obey them, we would just throw out the general rule in favor of its opposite, which wouldnâ??t be right. That said, yes, itâ??s deplorable that parents sometimes take advantage of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to facilitate abuse. The only thing I can say is that whether or not the judgments of fallible humans on earth are adequate, The Final Judgment of the Just Judge wonâ??t be very kind to them.

â?¦honoring themâ?¦

Here again, we canâ??t just throw out the general rule in favor of adopting its opposite. If perfection were the standard, no child would ever honor his or her parents. Itâ??s still possible to honor our parents for the roles they played in bringing us into the world, even if theyâ??re not deserving of honor for much else. To borrow and slightly alter a phrase used by the Savior, â??If ye only honor them which honor you, what reward have ye?â?

â?¦ when everybody tells you that your parents are looking out for your best interests â?¦

As a general rule, yes, parents should/do look out for the best interests of their children, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly spares no pains to teach parents to do so. I donâ??t doubt that there are someâ??probably manyâ??parents, even in the Church, who donâ??t; I just donâ??t think you can blame the Church of Jesus Christ when parents use their agency unwisely to violate the general rules that yes, parents should/do look out for the best interests of their children, and yes, the Church of Jesus Christ does encourage them to do so.

â?¦ and protect you from strangers (it's always the strangers everybody's afraid of; a stranger has never done anything to me) â?¦

Iâ??m sorry youâ??ve been victimized by those closest to you, but that still doesnâ??t change the general rule that itâ??s a good idea to be cautious around strangers.

â?¦ when everybody who knows your parent tells you what a wonderful person they are â?¦

Itâ??s said that integrity is doing the right thing when nobodyâ??s looking. Iâ??m sorry your father lacks integrity to such a degree that public acclaim from those who donâ??t know him is worth more to him than the private respect of his daughter. I just donâ??t think you should blame the Church of Jesus Christ for that. If I were in that situation, and if I didnâ??t believe such parents would eventually receive just condemnation from a Just Judge, I would be sad, frustrated, and angry, indeed.

â?¦ when everybody who knows your parent tells you what a wonderful person they are â?¦

So â?¦ as bad as what your father has done to you is, you honestly believe he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? I agree, that is sad; unspeakably so. (Whether you believe your father has absolutely no redeeming qualities or whether he actually doesnâ??t, itâ??s equally sad).

â?¦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 abusedâ?¦

I agree: abuse is deplorable. If you want to tar an entire organization with the same brush because of the actions of some of its members, that is your right, but it is my right to believe that doing so is not appropriate. It wonâ??t help you heal from the wounds and scars that you have any faster. It wonâ??t ease your pain.

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.

What remarks are those? Iâ??m not defending individual acts of abuse or the abusers who perpetrate them. No, there arenâ??t words strong enough to indicate how vile abuse is or to adequately condemn its perpetrators. All Iâ??ve said is that: (1) itâ??s not practical or desirable for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to handle exceptions in the same way it handles the rules; (2) because of (1), above, rules can be taught en masse, while exceptions must be handled one-to-one and face-to-face; (3) no, nobodyâ??s perfect, and yes, it is deplorable that some members of the Church of Jesus Christ perpetrate abuse; (4) itâ??s not useful or appropriate to tar a whole organization with the same broad brush because of the acts of some of its members; and (5) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesnâ??t teach its priesthood holders that they can use the priesthood to facilitate unrighteous conduct, while teaching its non-priesthood holding members that using the priesthood in such a way is appropriate.

Nowhere have I ever defended abuse or abusers.

Link to comment
Thank you so much for being able to put my thoughts into words. I was up all night thinking about this word "dominion" and how it has no place in the eternal relationship between a man and a woman.

Yeah. Especially since, because the words dominion and dominate happen to share the same root, that must mean they mean the same thing; :unsure::P and especially since tthere really is no difference between the way the world uses the word dominion and the way the Lord uses it. :ph34r:<_< What part of â?amen to the priesthood of that manâ? donâ??t you understand? Dominion, both on earth and in the enternities, is shared between righteous husbands and wives equally.

Link to comment

Yeah. Especially since, because the words dominion and dominate happen to share the same root, that must mean they mean the same thing; :unsure::P and especially since tthere really is no difference between the way the world uses the word dominion and the way the Lord uses it. :ph34r:<_< What part of â?amen to the priesthood of that manâ? donâ??t you understand? Dominion, both on earth and in the enternities, is shared between righteous husbands and wives equally.

Okay â?? Iâ??m not interested in breaking down words and understanding their root and digging into their true meanings. Iâ??m not interested in tearing it all apart to show those opposing my views that they are wrong. Iâ??m not interested in asking questions of you that make it sound like if you donâ??t understand â?? you must be less intelligent. Iâ??m not interested in telling you that you are wrong.

I am interested in sharing perspectives and listening to what others have to say about it all. I am also aware that how the world operates and uses language is very different from the way the Lord operates and uses language. Iâ??m also very willing to admit that I donâ??t completely understand dominion. As a woman who has participated in the temple ceremony and been married in the temple, Iâ??m not sure that men and women are really viewed as equals by the Lord. I also understand that the Lord hasnâ??t ordained women to the offices or the power of the priesthood. Iâ??m not sure how I can be equal to a man without that power. In my earthly understanding, it doesnâ??t seem equal. Iâ??m hoping that some day the Lord and I can discuss this and then He will show me the way. Right now, all I have is what Iâ??ve learned and what Iâ??ve experienced. I have questions, I have concerns. Iâ??ve left the church. I know what Iâ??m up against when I pose questions and concerns here. I perceive that Iâ??m viewed as weaker than those who are able to remain in the church that also have questions and concerns. Sharing my views that oppose the views of the church on this site automatically makes me an â??antiâ? â?? I find that really interesting.

Your question "What part of 'amen to the priesthood of that man' donâ??t you understand?" Well - I'm uncomfortable with this question because it just sounds like a put down. But - I'm sure there's plenty I don't understand since I don't have the understanding of the Lord. It's probably better if I tell what I do understand first and then you can tell me later what you know better or more than me. I'll share my understanding in a separate post. Give me some time.

I shared earlier some statistics about abuse - I don't think abuse is the exception. Sadly - I'm afraid it's more of the rule. There's too much of it to pretend it's an exception. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with how powerless the victim can feel. There's plenty the church can do to aid families that are in trouble. More training for Bishops to handle these situations; lessons in RS, Priesthood, YW and YM that specifically address the issues surrounded with abuse; providing safe places to reveal the abuse; there's more.

Link to comment

I never said itâ??s OK to address the general rule for the Church while ignoring the exceptions, a point Iâ??ve made several times now. What I have said is that while rules can be taught en masse, exceptions have to be handled differently, usually one-to-one and face-to-face. (I donâ??t think youâ??d be very comfortable sitting in a class on â??What to do when your father tries to molest youâ? if you, hoping to find commonality with the others in the class, were to disclose that you were molested, only to find out that youâ??re the only one in that class of whom that is true.)

And cartoon bluejay and I have tried to help you understand why, if you don't address the exceptions, you may never have to deal with them face-to-face. It has nothing to do with asking victims for disclosure in class, G-d forbid! But if a girl is only told about fathers being good and right and has no idea that they may be bad and wrong, it's a problem.

You must be reading every other word of my posts. I never suggested such a thing, and your assertion that I did is offensive. Iâ??ll thank you to knock it off, and Iâ??ll accept an apology from you anytime youâ??re ready to extend one.

I apologize if I misinterpreted this statement; you did say you would be rightly castigated were you to suggest it, but then you mention a double standard for some reason:

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! :P)

You seem to insinuate that I was somehow applying a double standard and hiding behind my gender to throw accusations at men, while not allowing them to do the same. I've never done such a thing. I do have a hard time understanding this whole statement of yours, so forgive me if I made hasty judgements.

But you think the Church of Jesus Christ, does, though, and thatâ??s what concerns me.

Perhaps you can decipher this statement for me: "At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse." - Richard G. Scott http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem..._&hideNav=1 This statement is not gender-specific, but it greatly bothers me. I don't think the Church is willing to forgive the abusers of one gender more often than the other; but if you think that the standards for men and women are the same in the Church in general, I'm very surprised.

I also was abused by my mother, physically and emotionally, and the Church had nothing to do with it (the Church did, however, have a lot to do with my attempts to have a good relationship with her, which have failed, but I don't blame the Church for that); my father, on the other hand, would never abuse his children in any way (he is somewhat manipulative, but he would never want to take advantage of anyone) and has much more integrity, although he has a ton of other issues, but that's a long story; no one in my family is LDS, I converted in my late teens; but the other posters that have participated in this thread have been abused by their priesthood-holding LDS fathers. My mother has a lot of good qualities, but my relationship with her has never been a good one and I have become increasingly convinced that I'll only be able to forgive her and let go of all the negative memories if we have minimum interaction. I think society in general is doing very little to prevent abuse of children by figures of trust, even though in most instances the abuser is someone known to the child, not a complete stranger; and in over 80% of the cases, there is parental involvement in the abuse. I feel that the Church is contributing to the problem merely by glorifying patriarchy, or dominion of one person over the other. MC has expressed some very good thoughts on this issue. Parents' dominion over the children is not right, either; children are not property. The parents merely represent the children and their interests until the children are able to do so themselves. For some reason it seems to me that it's not how most people view the relationship between underage children and their parents, which is a pity, IMHO.

Link to comment
I am also aware that how the world operates and uses language is very different from the way the Lord operates and uses language.

Perhaps you ought to consider that, then, before shuddering with distaste and recoiling in horror when somebody uses that wordâ??especially in this forum.

Iâ??m also very willing to admit that I donâ??t completely understand dominion. As a woman who has participated in the temple ceremony and been married in the temple, Iâ??m not sure that men and women are really viewed as equals by the Lord.

I donâ??t completely understand dominion, either. I hope that after an eternity, I might have a little better grasp on it, but â?¦ Itâ??s interesting that you say you donâ??t think the Lord views men and women as equals. Usually, people who express concerns about perceived inequality donâ??t hesitate to say that they donâ??t doubt that the Lord views men and women as equals, but they wonder if that is true of the Church or its members. Are you a parent? Do you have sons, daughters, or both? If only (a) son(s), would you love your daughter(s) any less than you love your son(s)s? If only (a) daughter(s), would you love your sons any more than you love your daughter(s)? If both, do you love your son(s) more than you love your daughter(s)? If notâ??although we might not understand all of the reasons why God does what He doesâ??why do you think God loves His sons more than He loves His daughters?

I also understand that the Lord hasnâ??t ordained women to the offices or the power of the priesthood.

I donâ??t understand all of the whys and wherefores for why men are formally ordained, either; but I do believe wives share their husbandsâ?? priesthood in the home and in the eternities even without being formally ordained. Without women, there would be no family. Family is the basic unit of the Church. The Church is why the priesthood exists, so without that basic unit, all the priesthood in the world would be pretty pointless.

Iâ??m not sure how I can be equal to a man without that power.

Without you there would be no point in him having it. I assure you, the Lord has a far, far better grasp of the fact that â??differentâ? doesnâ??t mean â??unequalâ? than perhaps humanity ever will.

In my earthly understanding, it doesnâ??t seem equal.

The key word there being earthly.

Iâ??m hoping that some day the Lord and I can discuss this and then He will show me the way. Right now, all I have is what Iâ??ve learned and what Iâ??ve experienced.

You donâ??t have to rely strictly on earthly learning or experience, as useful as those are for so many things. As for discussing it with Him â??some day,â? why wait? Prayerâ??s a direct line, and thereâ??s no waiting.

I have questions, I have concerns.

Congratulations (and I mean that sincerely)! Anyone whoâ??s ever been associated with the Church of Jesus Christ and has a reasonably well-functioning brain has questions and concerns. (And Iâ??m not trying to be condescending, I really mean that, as well.) â??Questionsâ? and â??concernsâ? are one thing; everybody has them. Doubt and faith, however, are choices.

Iâ??ve left the church.

Thatâ??s unfortunate, but doors and hearts will always be open to you, if-and-when you should ever choose to return. Youâ??ll always be welcome.

I know what Iâ??m up against when I pose questions and concerns here.

Truth? :P And Iâ??m not talking about the â??those-@#!#!!-Mormons-think-they-have-all-the-truthâ? kind of truth, either. (We donâ??t have that kind of truth; see Articles of Faith 1:9). Iâ??m talking about the â??reasonable-explanations-to-respond-to-those-who-would-sow-doubts-about-the-Churchâ? kind of truth.

I perceive that Iâ??m viewed as weaker than those who are able to remain in the church that also have questions and concerns.

Not necessarily. As I said, questions and concerns are inevitable, but doubt and faith are optional.

Sharing my views that oppose the views of the church on this site automatically makes me an â??antiâ? â?? I find that really interesting.

Would you prefer Counter-Mormon, or counter-mo, for short? I wonâ??t lie to you: some people in the Church of Jesus Christ are interested in fomenting an â??us-against-themâ? ethic. Quite a few, though (and I think this description represents the majority of Mormons on this Board) simply want to know where youâ??re coming from. If you want to convince the faithful that the only reason they are able to remain faithful is that they have silenced the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise eat away their testimonies, you probably wonâ??t be very well received. (There are plenty of people on this Board who tryâ??and have triedâ??to do that, as well; as I say, theyâ??re not well-received, and I think with good reason.) If, however, youâ??re open to a little â??reasonable-explanations-to-respond-to-those-who-would-sow-doubts-about-the-Churchâ? kind of â??truth,â? then your time here might be more productive for all concerned.

I shared earlier some statistics about abuse - I don't think abuse is the exception. Sadly - I'm afraid it's more of the rule. There's too much of it to pretend it's an exception.

Weâ??ll just have to agree to disagree about that, then.

Unfortunately, I'm familiar with how powerless the victim can feel.

Iâ??m sorry to hear that.

There's plenty the church can do to aid families that are in trouble.

It does, but as long as we disagree on which instances are rules and which are exceptions, Iâ??m afraid youâ??ll never be convinced that it does, or possibly could do, enough.

Link to comment

What part of â?amen to the priesthood of that manâ? donâ??t you understand?

Well â?? first Iâ??ll discuss my understanding of the priesthood. I view the priesthood as the power of God. So â?? I see the power of the priesthood in nature, in space, in science, in human development, in everything living and non-living that exists. In all the specifics that created earth and man and how it evolved to what we are now. This is a power to which I hold a great respect and reverence. Being aware of this power and how to connect to it brings me great peace. Then there are the offices of the priesthood that are used in the church to (I canâ??t think of the proper word) but are used in the function of the gospel and the church to perform ordinances and various duties within the church. You stated â??The Church is why the priesthood existsâ? â?? Iâ??m not nit-picking here â?? I just see it as the complete opposite. The priesthood is why the church exists. Also you mentioned the family as being the basic unit of the church â?? my contention is that nothing exists without the priesthood. The family unit can not exist without the priesthood.

Okay that being said â?? if we look to D&C 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.

When it comes to â??amen to the priesthood or the authority of that manâ? â?? to me, itâ??s saying the priesthood holderâ??s ability to administer in his office of the priesthood is taken away and any authority that he may have had in operating within the power of the priesthood is taken away if the priesthood holder acts in a way to cover up sin, etc.

So, as the OP asks â?? Are patriarchal blessings valid if the one holding the calling of patriarch is unworthy of his calling? This scripture states â??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.â? To me, this says that righteousness is not all that controls the powers of heaven or the powers of the priesthood â?? the blessing stands- the man who gave the blessing however, has had heaven withdraw itself from him. I think that means heâ??ll have to answer to God big time. That he, himself, has no authority in the priesthood but the blessings stands by powers beyond the authority of the patriarch.

How does this translate to abusive fathers who hold the priesthood? I would say exactly the same way. But it says nothing to the women who are married to the unworthy priesthood holder or the daughter of an unworthy priesthood holder. My concern is with the victim. The Lord can judge the unworthy priesthood holder. I canâ??t. The Lord can heal the victim and we can help. If 38 % of girls under 18 are sexually abused â?? letâ??s turn it around â?? there are 38%+ LDS priesthood holders who have lost their authority â?? yet are still holding their callings. This is a confusing message to a wife, YW, or YM. There can be more done to address this problem. To me, thatâ??s a huge number. There should be more done to address the problem.

Link to comment

How does this translate to abusive fathers who hold the priesthood? I would say exactly the same way. But it says nothing to the women who are married to the unworthy priesthood holder or the daughter of an unworthy priesthood holder. My concern is with the victim. The Lord can judge the unworthy priesthood holder. I canâ??t. The Lord can heal the victim and we can help. If 38 % of girls under 18 are sexually abused â?? letâ??s turn it around â?? there are 38%+ LDS priesthood holders who have lost their authority â?? yet are still holding their callings. This is a confusing message to a wife, YW, or YM. There can be more done to address this problem. To me, thatâ??s a huge number. There should be more done to address the problem.

That's a good scriptural basis for your postion of the blessing being valid despite the patriarch being unworthy. But then, if I understand you correctly, all of us have the priesthood, or divine nature? - can't think of a more proper term. I think I agree with that. Then the ordination that exists within the Church is not worth much outside of the context of the Church. When someone is ordained into a priesthood office, it's more like a job with responsibilities (performing priesthood ordinances/blessings in the Church) in exchange for payment (the rights/authority of a pristhood holder). Someone can work as a camp counselor and hold that position and be formally recognized as a camp counselor and receive money in exchange for their service. Another person can volunteer as a camp counselor and perform the same tasks without being compensated or formally recognized as a camp counselor. But both people have that potential to perform the tasks of a camp counselor, they don't need a written formal decree to receive the ability to perform those tasks. That's how I think of it. And Son would probably agree, although it seems like he thinks there has only been a handful of individuals worthy of employing the priesthood powers.

As for the Church and abuse, and rules and exceptions, and victims and perpetrators, I have been thinking more about it and here's what I would like to say to Ken:

Is it the victim's responsibility to make the abuse stop? No, it's the abuser's responsibility. The victim is not responsible for what is done to them by others. Is it the victim's responsibility to prevent the abuse from happening to them? No, that's a ridiculous notion; the best way to prevent being abused by other people would be to kill them all off before they could abuse you. Will the abuse stop if the victim knows how to recognize and properly report and handle it and turns the abuser in to the authorities? Yes, it will, at least for the time the abuser is in custody/the victim is removed from the situation. Will it be possible to prevent the abuse from occurring if a girl knows that even priesthood holders can be malevolent? Very often, it will.

In most cases of child sexual abuse, the victim is not kicking, screaming or trying to get away because the perpetrator is a figure of trust.

Does the Church command husbands/fathers to abuse their wives/children? No, and no one in their right mind would think that, and I've never said anything of the sort. Does the Church condone abuse? No, I've never said that. Do they deal with abuse when it's brought to their attention? I would like to say yes in most cases, and if it's not done properly, it's the individual bishop's/SP's fault rather than bad policies. I'm not saying the Church by its mere existence somehow generates abuse in the midst of its members. On the other hand, is it the Church's responsibility to make the abuse stop or to prevent abuse from occurring? It appears that they assumed that responsibility when they took upon themselves a mission of perfecting the Saints. The only thing they are doing to prevent it is telling people not to abuse others. They are being too idealistic when addressing potential victims, however, and think they have done enough by just telling fathers to exercise only righteous dominion. Experience has shown that husbands/fathers will abuse their wives/children despite being constantly encouraged to be righteous and constantly discouraged from abusing their families. So this encouragement of rigteousness/discouragement of men is not sufficient. By telling women, especially young women, how to recognize and handle abuse instead of generalizing and presenting priesthood holders as good and righteous per se, the Church would be able to contribute to preventing abuse. Because of this generalization, priesthood holders often equate with righteous dominion in the minds of abused women/girls. The Church is responsible for both making the abuse stop and preventing it. They are doing a much better job at making the abuse stop in every individual case than at preventing it (both in individual cases and per se). By not doing all they can to prevent abuse, they perpetuate the paradigm in which abuse exists. If they don't adequately prevent it, it will continue to exist, and they will continue to put band-aids on this ever-bleeding wound by excommunicating the offenders and telling men to not abuse their wives/children.

Link to comment

That's a good scriptural basis for your postion of the blessing being valid despite the patriarch being unworthy. But then, if I understand you correctly, all of us have the priesthood, or divine nature? - can't think of a more proper term. I think I agree with that. Then the ordination that exists within the Church is not worth much outside of the context of the Church. When someone is ordained into a priesthood office, it's more like a job with responsibilities (performing priesthood ordinances/blessings in the Church) in exchange for payment (the rights/authority of a pristhood holder).

That's pretty much the belief I hold is that all of us DO indeed have the "priesthood". I know COJCOLDS describes that power as the priesthood and I think it confuses people to have the same word for two different functions. So - in my mind women have the priesthood - it doesn't make any sense to me why they are not able to receive callings of offices in the priesthood. I also think that everyone has the ability to access this power. I think the more that someone is aware of the power the more they are able to see (with spiritual eyes) and work with that power to receive benefits. I think too many times people recognize the power but don't understand the nature of the power. So in a sense, they fight against the current instead of going with the flow and then the power can have damaging effects. I also think that it's a power that is accessed because of the understanding or awareness of it's nature - which I guess could be thought of as your own personal worthiness but I think it's more respect and honour. What I'm thinking is more complex than I'm presenting. I have yet to determine what I think about Joseph Smith's experiences. I'm not even sure if what I'm talking about is God - I think the way Mormons understand God - God is a personage that must obey the laws of the priesthood. But I don't think it's so much obedience as it is being aware of what can be performed with that power. What I'm saying is I don't think disobedience is possible within that power. There are consequences for not understanding how to use the power.

That's just what I've come up with - It's how it makes sense to me -

Link to comment

That's pretty much the belief I hold is that all of us DO indeed have the "priesthood". I know COJCOLDS describes that power as the priesthood and I think it confuses people to have the same word for two different functions. So - in my mind women have the priesthood - it doesn't make any sense to me why they are not able to receive callings of offices in the priesthood. I also think that everyone has the ability to access this power. I think the more that someone is aware of the power the more they are able to see (with spiritual eyes) and work with that power to receive benefits. I think too many times people recognize the power but don't understand the nature of the power. So in a sense, they fight against the current instead of going with the flow and then the power can have damaging effects. I also think that it's a power that is accessed because of the understanding or awareness of it's nature - which I guess could be thought of as your own personal worthiness but I think it's more respect and honour. What I'm thinking is more complex than I'm presenting. I have yet to determine what I think about Joseph Smith's experiences. I'm not even sure if what I'm talking about is God - I think the way Mormons understand God - God is a personage that must obey the laws of the priesthood. But I don't think it's so much obedience as it is being aware of what can be performed with that power. What I'm saying is I don't think disobedience is possible within that power. There are consequences for not understanding how to use the power.

That's just what I've come up with - It's how it makes sense to me -

I like that. I agree that thinking of God as a personage is limiting. I guess I would characterize everything that exists as God, which is probably what you are thinking. Obedience also implies that there might be rebellion; I would say God does not obey any laws, God just is. The concept of binding laws is a human construct.

Link to comment

I like that. I agree that thinking of God as a personage is limiting. I guess I would characterize everything that exists as God, which is probably what you are thinking. Obedience also implies that there might be rebellion; I would say God does not obey any laws, God just is. The concept of binding laws is a human construct.

How can you claim to be a Mormon and believe/teach so many things that are flatly contradictory to the expressed teachings of the Church?

You might consider it an attack (and frankly I don't care), but your touchy-feely, free form religion is expressly condemned in Scripture and your positions flatly contradict both the canon of Scripture and modern revelation!

Don't you realize that there is a heck of a lot more to being a believing Mormon than simply having your name on the Sunday School rolls?

Many of the positions you are espousing are in flat opposition to the Church.

How do you explain the discrepancy and your basic, consistant antagonism toward the Church?

Link to comment

How can you claim to be a Mormon and believe/teach so many things that are flatly contradictory to the expressed teachings of the Church?

You might consider it an attack (and frankly I don't care), but your touchy-feely, free form religion is expressly condemned in Scripture and your positions flatly contradict both the canon of Scripture and modern revelation!

Don't you realize that there is a heck of a lot more to being a beleiving Mormon than simply having your name on the Sunday School rolls?

It's enough for my visiting teachers to consider me one. I actually like this post of yours because you are finally using evidence (Scriptures and modern revelation) to back up your claim. Good job! The reason why I started contemplating dissociating myself from the Church, as you and I have discussed in other threads, is because I realized that I'm not right for the Church. Not because the Church is not right for me, but because I'm not right for them. So I can claim to be a mormon if I see myself as one (although I would have to say that, although there are certain unique doctrines of mormonsim that I wholeheartedly believe, I don't believe most of its current doctrines), but you have every right in the world to not regard me as one. Am I a member of the LDS Church? Yes, as long as my name is on the rolls. Would I go to church and bear my testimony of the beliefs I have expressed on this board? No, I wouldn't. If someone asked me what my religious beliefs were, I wouldn't just say "I'm LDS", I would give them a brief summary of my beliefs.

I'm also not teaching my beliefs in the sense of instructing others; I'm merely informing others of them when I think it's relevant. As a value pluralist, I'm able to consider contradictory beliefs equally valid. So I would never aggressively try to convert anyone to my beliefs. Thus, I see no harm to the Church or any individuals on this board in me expressing what I believe. When we are talking about claims that can actually be backed up by evidence, whether or not everyone agrees that this evidence is valid, I may want to try to prove/disprove something. As for my personal beliefs, I can't present any convincing evidence to others to entice them to adopt my beliefs, so I'm not attempting to convert anyone, although my testimony is no less real to me than your testimony is real to you.

Link to comment

Try again.

Many are abused in homes all over the world. They don't go militant upon their religion.

I have not gone militant on my religion... but somewhere, somehow... leaders from my religion have failed me on many occasions. But all the same - I have learned that men are the failures (that is not just man but woman too...) and only God is perfect. I am simply trying to learn who and when to trust... and that is HARD!

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is Wonderful! God does love his children and cries with them. I know that!... but learning how and when to trust a man holding a position in the church is one of the hardest things for me. I think you should question who your leaders are and try to find a way to know whether it is God speaking or Man.

I hope that makes sense. I am sorry if I have offended you Hammer, or anyone else. I do not wish my trials or concerns on anyone! The sad part though, is that they are very real.

Link to comment

Some attributes of a true LDS is the ability to be taught, to be humble, loving, understanding, etc.

We may not always show all of these traites, but we at least should show some of these some of the time. In this I feel not fitting it sounds about right.

I wish many would listen to those first few words you said... attributes of a TRUE LDS = humble, loving, UNDERSTANDING.

Understanding is one that is lacking too much... IMO. Simply because people feel they know more or better, thus throwing out any sense of understanding. It really is sad!

Link to comment

Perhaps you can decipher this statement for me: "At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse." - Richard G. Scott compressed link

OMG, I think I'm gonna be sick. Anyone who makes such a statement has never had to deal with abuse of anykind in their lifetime. My 4 yo daughter has been the victim of sexual abuse by an older sibling, and this type of statement almost incites rage in me over the ignorance of such a thing. Swing the pendulum further along these lines and you end up in the middle east where women are killed for being raped (as though it is totally their fault).

He goes on to say, "Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit." Look even I know from what little psychology I had taken in school, never is psychological healing going to occur for the victim of abuse by putting any responsibility of the event upon the victim.

Its interesting how its worded, what with qualifiers that add murkiness and uncertainty to the statement (like "at some point" and "the Lord may prompt" so that he can say, "I never said that the victim always bears partial responsibility." Sounds like it was worded by a politician who didn't wanna be labeled a racist for some comment that borders on racism. At any rate, I fail to see any point where the victim of abuse holds any responsibility for someone else's actions upon them, and to suggest such a thing shows just out clueless this guy must be about abuse in general.

Link to comment

In Elder Scott's defense, he also said in the same talk: "I solemnly testify that when anotherâ??s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty."

Can the two statements be reconciled?

Link to comment

"Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure."

I think maybe the context indicates that he views a persons "increasing consent" to abuse as the "responsibility" mentioned a few lines before.

Is a person who starts to submit to abuse somewhat responsible? I think maybe there is some, but can you really blame someone put in such an awful position?

Link to comment

In Elder Scott's defense, he also said in the same talk: "I solemnly testify that when anotherâ??s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty."

Can the two statements be reconciled?

Let me try to use my powers of universalism to reconcile these statements.....

*lots of smoke and mirrors*

Okay, the only way I can reconcile these two statements is to say that Elder Scott has Dissociative Identity Disorder (commonly known as multiple personality disorder or split personality disorder), and the two statements are from two different personalities within him. Most the time such disorders are the result of very traumatic situations witnessed or experienced in Childhood, so maybe Elder Scott was abused as a child, and one of his personalities feels guilty for Uncle Bob's loose and exploring hands and other appendages.

:P <--- denotes that I am being sarcastic here, for those who are about to jump me for such statements.

Link to comment

Is a person who starts to submit to abuse somewhat responsible? I think maybe there is some, but can you really blame someone put in such an awful position?

Okay, well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but NEVER IN YOUR LIFE ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR ANOTHER ADULT'S ACTIONS UPON YOURSELF, period.

So we don't derail this thread, I am going to create a new thread on this topic.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...