K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 Just to clarify, I used the ">" sign above to suggest the direction of revelation and oversight rather than to mean "greater than."
Tacenda Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Just to clarify, I used the ">" sign above to suggest the direction of revelation and oversight rather than to mean "greater than."About the same thing. So women only get spiritual revelation for her children not her husband? That's not very equal.
K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 I believe the God>husband>wife>children view is made most clear in polygamous families, where the roles of the husband and wives aren't exactly equal due to there being multiple wives and marriages. That is probably one of the reasons that polygamy seems so distasteful to modern sensibilities - it clarifies the existence of patriarchy in family government.
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Just to clarify, I used the ">" sign above to suggest the direction of revelation and oversight rather than to mean "greater than." That would be correct. A woman is to receive counsel of the Lord through her husband.
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 That would be correct. A woman is to receive counsel of the Lord through her husband. Women are perfectly capable of accessing the divine without using men as intermediaries
Tacenda Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Women are perfectly capable of accessing the divine without using men as intermediariesI think Senator might be saying that sarcastically, but forgive me if I'm wrong. Gray thank you, woman can and do get it on their own. Without being a widow only. The prophetesses in the bible come to mind. And the fairly new LDS teaching that women and men are equals. But then not so much in the temple. So maybe the new leanings are for PR. 1
K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 I ought to confess also that I am not in favor of women being ordained to the priesthood. I played devil's advocate in some of my posts here in order to try to see how many people were opposed. I think CV75 is right about the scripture saying "all are alike" probably having reference to God's blessings through the priesthood rather than to actual ordination. People like Bruce R. McConkie, Darius Gray, etc., though, have used it in a way that might lead people to believe that the priesthood ban was unfair somehow and that since it ended we are in harmony with the scripture. Since the Lord promised the priesthood and its blessings to those under the ban from the beginning, I don't see it as inconsistent or unfair, but rather as the Lord timing things according to his will.
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Women are perfectly capable of accessing the divine without using men as intermediaries Be that as it may, in LDS teachings the husband is established as an intermediary between the wife and the Lord. 1
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I think Senator might be saying that sarcastically, but forgive me if I'm wrong. Sorry, no sarcasm this time.
K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 Women are perfectly capable of accessing the divine without using men as intermediariesAren't priests male intermediaries?
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I think Senator might be saying that sarcastically, but forgive me if I'm wrong. Gray thank you, woman can and do get it on their own. Without being a widow only.The prophetesses in the bible come to mind. And the fairly new LDS teaching that women and men are equals. But then not so much in the temple. So maybe the new leanings are for PR. If sarcastic, I missed it. Totally possible. I don't always pick up on it over the computer. The idea that women might be less capable than men at this raises the eyebrow just as much as the notion that Mormons grow horns at night. It's so silly it doesn't even merit serious consideration.
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Be that as it may, in LDS teachings the husband is established as an intermediary between the wife and the Lord. On the face of it it seems to me an obviously wrong-headed notion. The fact that it's been taught doesn't change that.
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Aren't priests male intermediaries? I wouldn't call them intermediaries, no.
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 The idea that women might be less capable than men...... It isn't that they are less capable, but that they are asked to concede to their husbands.
K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 Jesus is a male intermediary. Women and men need to "access the Divine" through him.
K-2 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 I am a branch of the vine that came out of the root that Jesus dwells in; and when my son or my daughter turns away from me, they turn away from God; and if they do not turn away from God, they will not turn away from me; and when my wife turns away from me, if I am a righteous man, she turns from the tree she is connected to; and if she has done it unrighteously, she turns from God--she transcends her bounds, and the Spirit of the Almighty will not dwell with her; and all you sympathetic persons will fall in with that spirit and condemn me. (Heber C. Kimball, JD 9:25) 1
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 It isn't that they are less capable, but that they are asked to concede to their husbands. They are asked, but I think not by God. Imagine asking your daughters to stop communicating with you and instead pass messages through your sons.
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Jesus is a male intermediary. Women and men need to "access the Divine" through him. When you said priest I thought you were referring to an ordinary person of that calling or vocation. In any case, non-Christians can also access the divine, and they don't believe in Jesus.
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 They are asked, but I think not by God. I don't know your status or experience level in the church. But it is in the temple that such instruction is given, and it given directly by God himself.
CV75 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I ought to confess also that I am not in favor of women being ordained to the priesthood. I played devil's advocate in some of my posts here in order to try to see how many people were opposed. I think CV75 is right about the scripture saying "all are alike" probably having reference to God's blessings through the priesthood rather than to actual ordination. People like Bruce R. McConkie, Darius Gray, etc., though, have used it in a way that might lead people to believe that the priesthood ban was unfair somehow and that since it ended we are in harmony with the scripture. Since the Lord promised the priesthood and its blessings to those under the ban from the beginning, I don't see it as inconsistent or unfair, but rather as the Lord timing things according to his will.I think context is important. Moroni 8:7 applies to Moroni’s and God’s love for children. Mosiah 29:32 applies to Mosiah’s desires for righteousness in religion and equality in rule. 2 Nephi 26:33 applies to God’s acceptance of those who “come and partake of His goodness” (note that He does deny those that don’t come and partake). Both OD2 and Nephi 26:33 fall under the subject of God’s acceptance of worthy members, but both God and the Church always accepted membership from any who would partake.
Gray Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I don't know your status or experience level in the church. But it is in the temple that such instruction is given, and it given directly by God himself. The endowment is highly symbolic and has changed materially over the years. That tells me we shouldn't get hung up on the specifics of language, as if the language of the endowment were directly quoting from God. I don't think that's what the experience is about.
CV75 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Be that as it may, in LDS teachings the husband is established as an intermediary between the wife and the Lord.I have to disagree: I think LDS teachings are that the priesthood, which is conferred upon males, brings the blessings of heaven to earth. In this sense alone do priesthood holders serve as intermediaries, by administering the ordinances. This is an example of priesthood intermediation by virtue of priesthood office.All counsel (to me this means doctrine and revelation) provided by virtue of the priesthood comes through proper channels, originating with the First Presidency who gets it from the Lord. We all covenant to obey that counsel. This is an example of priesthood intermediation by virtue of priesthood order.But not all priesthood orders are equal. The order of eternal marriage for example allows both husband and wife to counsel each other with a united "power in the priesthood" without being intermediaries for each otehr while preserving the intermediation that provides them with the ordinances, doctrines and covenants of the Kingdom. The patriarchal order is still subject to the requirements of office and order described above. 1
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 But not all priesthood orders are equal. The order of eternal marriage for example allows both husband and wife to counsel each other with a united "power in the priesthood" without being intermediaries for each otehr while preserving the intermediation that provides them with the ordinances, doctrines and covenants of the Kingdom. The patriarchal order is still subject to the requirements of office and order described above. Hmm.. I'm beginning to see that Gray might be right, in that one should not get to hung up on the specifics of the language of the temple.
Calm Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Lds teaching does not allow for male "dominance":"Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22).Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals, with neither person exercising dominion over the other, but with each encouraging, comforting, and helping the other."https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/06/counseling-together-in-marriage?cid=GCact1213-4-1-6a2〈=eng Edited March 12, 2014 by calmoriah
Senator Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Lds teaching does not allow for male "dominance": I agree with you. However, what the teachings are, and how those teachings are actually carried out in a culture are two different things. I would dare say, that up until about 20 to 30 years ago, there was as much male dominance in LDS marriages (maybe more so seeing that there may have been an inferred divine sanction to it) as there was in the surrounding culture at large.
Recommended Posts