All Are Alike...

[Senator]

The order for the wife to hearken to the man is with regard to receiving counsel in the form of priesthood ordinances, not personal counsel.

 

I respect your interpolation.

[CV75]

I respect your interpolation.

In D&C 19:31-33, the covenants (baptism in water and by fire) are “these counsels”. D&C 78:16 shows that Adam’s keys are under the counsel (keys) of the Holy One. “Counsel” is similarly used in D&C 3:13 and D&C 104:21, 36 (“counsel of the order”).

[Senator]

Notice how God never speaks directly to Eve except to chastize her for taking the fruit and to put her under command to follow the counsel of her husband, while he routinely speaks directly to Adam. 

 

 

 

We also notice that after the fall and the covenant that they make between each other and the Lord, Eve never again speaks.

[Buckeye]

The order for the wife to hearken to the man is with regard to receiving counsel in the form of priesthood ordinances, not personal counsel.

 

Is that the same order that governs member's interaction with their priesthood leaders?  We receive counsel in the form of priesthood ordinances from the bishop, prophet, etc., but we don't receive personal counsel from them?  Seems like general conference gets thinks backwards, then.  It should just be a big sacrament meeting presided over by the FP and 12, rather than 10+ hours of counsel. 

[Senator]

In D&C 19:31-33, the covenants (baptism in water and by fire) are “these counsels”. D&C 78:16 shows that Adam’s keys are under the counsel (keys) of the Holy One. “Counsel” is similarly used in D&C 3:13 and D&C 104:21, 36 (“counsel of the order”).

Again, I need point out that I respect your interpolative work.

 

What I think might need be understood here, is that of progression. Remember, that this is the first of the covenants that are made in the temple. It is primitive, if you will. The temple is all about progressing from lower to higher states.  We are well versed in the knowledge of lower covenants/commandments being fulfilled with higher ones.   

 

In short, I think in this regard, we aught to be pleased that we are teaching and living above some of our covenants.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Senator

[CV75]

Is that the same order that governs member's interaction with their priesthood leaders?  We receive counsel in the form of priesthood ordinances from the bishop, prophet, etc., but we don't receive personal counsel from them?  Seems like general conference gets thinks backwards, then.  It should just be a big sacrament meeting presided over by the FP and 12, rather than 10+ hours of counsel.

I covered this in other posts (See #97, 101, and 107). Conflating priesthood power, conferral, office and order is problematic, and your comment shows this.

[Calm]

It matters in instances where the instruction comes to one spouse before the other.  Under the current endownment, if the husband receives inspiration, he can present that to his wife and she can receive confirmation and they move forward in unity.  However, if the wife receives the inspiration, there is no corresponding convenant for the husband to consider the counsel as possibly coming from God.  The current endownment still sets up the paradigm in which God speaks directly to men and God speaks to women through men.  Notice how God never speaks directly to Eve except to chastize her for taking the fruit and to put her under command to follow the counsel of her husband, while he routinely speaks directly to Adam. 

 

To be clear, I think many members do have equal marriages in which husbands fully expect inspiration to comes through their wives, but that equality comes from choices they make outside of the current temple paradigm.  I would not be surprised if someday the temple ceremony were changed to include equal charges to men and women, but that day isn't here yet.

If someone bases their understanding of the gospel and how we are to form our lives around it solely on that which is received through one vehicle of teaching, whether it is the temple, conference talks, scriptures, Sunday School. Primary, or whatever they will never even begin to contemplate what our potentials are as individuals, couples, members and children of God.

[Calm]

I hear what you are saying. Nonetheless, it evidently does matter who acts as voice.

 

Now, we can wave it off as mere procedure, since God is a God of order and all. That's fine. But we can't deny that the order has been established, and in high places at that.

But the end result would be the same whether God appoints the husband or wife as voice if unity is required.

[CV75]

Again, I need point out that I respect your interpolative work.

 

What I think might need be understood here, is that of progression. Remember, that this is the first of the covenants that are made in the temple. It is primitive, if you will. The temple is all about progressing from lower to higher states.  We are well versed in the knowledge of lower covenants/commandments being fulfilled with higher ones.   

 

In short, I think in this regard, we aught to be pleased that we are teaching and living above some of our covenants.

I appreciate that you respect that I'm building new consructs, but none of what I'm saying is at all new.

Of course the words and language of temple covenants are fundamental and even primal, and we build our godly experience from there as we keep them. But even in the most simple (rather, essential) context in which those words are presented to us--in the context of our Redemption--the husband isn't "the boss of" the wife. We are shown in the temple that the Redemption culminates from a series of priesthood ordinances, which males perform by the authority delgated to them by God. The couple submits to that order together--note tehat Adam could not have made his covenant without Eve making hers first.

[K-2]

CV75, I'm wondering how you would answer this question:

 

Do you believe that the relationship between God and a family is like this:

God>husband>wife>children

or like this:

God>husband & wife>children

or like this?

God>wife>husband>children

 

Just trying to make sure I understand your position. By the way, as I mentioned above, ">" is not meant to signify "greater than" for the purposes of the question, but rather oversight and direction.

Edited March 13, 2014 by K-2

[Senator]

 But even in the most simple (rather, essential) context in which those words are presented to us--in the context of our Redemption--the husband isn't "the boss of" the wife.

 

Of course no one has suggested this.

 

But the most simple context demonstrates that the husband is something to the wife that the wife is not to the husband. Just what that something is, well, that is the query.

[Senator]

But the end result would be the same whether God appoints the husband or wife as voice if unity is required.

Agreed.

 

So then need we say that the way things went down was based on a 50/50 chance that Adam and Eve might have ended in opposite roles?

[Calm]

You mean if Adam had been the one to choose first?

Interesting idea.

[jaxenro]

"So then need we say that the way things went down was based on a 50/50 chance that Adam and Eve might have ended in opposite roles?"
 

Do you really think it was chance? I think we were designed, created, for the roles we fill. If we can have gender without physical bodies, and my understanding is we had gender roles in pre existence, then gender is a eternal principle separate from, but also existing within, physical bodies.

 

We are physicallly and physicallly desgned by gender for the roles we are to assume in life and in marriage

[JLHPROF]

Agreed.

 

So then need we say that the way things went down was based on a 50/50 chance that Adam and Eve might have ended in opposite roles?

 

You mean if Adam had been the one to choose first?

Interesting idea.

 

There is the old notion to consider (admittedly from back in Brigham's day) that Eve not only knew exactly what she was doing, but it was her role and even calling to "partake of the fruit".  In other words, she was not deceived and everything went down according to plan.  In that case it would not have been a 50/50 chance.  It was something that always had to happen the way it did.

[Senator]

"So then need we say that the way things went down was based on a 50/50 chance that Adam and Eve might have ended in opposite roles?"

 

Do you really think it was chance? I think we were designed, created, for the roles we fill. If we can have gender without physical bodies, and my understanding is we had gender roles in pre existence, then gender is a eternal principle separate from, but also existing within, physical bodies.

 

We are physicallly and physicallly desgned by gender for the roles we are to assume in life and in marriage

 

I think that gender characteristics, and the resulting roles that sprout therefrom, are not always as neatly packaged as you portray them to be.

[jaxenro]

I think when dealing with historical averages yes, when dealing with individuals there are always differences from the norm

As far as dealing with what I think was the original post that compared female ordination to the 1978 decision I don't se the parallel for several reasons

[CV75]

But the most simple context demonstrates that the husband is something to the wife that the wife is not to the husband. Just what that something is, well, that is the query.

I think he is simply the priesthood holder to the wife; or rather to the couple (since they were one flesh even before the Fall). Likewise, I think she is simply the catalyst for the husband to act in the priesthood; or rather to the couple, for the same reason. Eve was only following the Lord's command to be the first to enter the covenant of redemption, which covenant was established in two parts and in a certain sequence.

Edited March 13, 2014 by CV75

[Senator]

I think he is simply the priesthood holder to the wife; or rather to the couple (since they were one flesh even before the Fall). Likewise, I think she is simply the catalyst for the husband to act in the priesthood; or rather to the couple, for the same reason. Eve was only following the Lord's command to be the first to enter the covenant of redemption, which covenant was established in two parts and in a certain sequence.

 

Though I don't share your certainty in your interpretations, they are nonetheless worthy of consideration.

[mtomm]

 

 

Eve was only following the Lord's command to be the first to enter the covenant of redemption

Could this be said like  this?  Eve was the first to enter into the covenant of redemption.  

If so, how come I've never seen it quite like that before?  Is it because it is always couched with transgression or sin?  Would this really be doctrine?  

[jaxenro]

Aren't we to assume that God places the specific spirit He chooses in a specific body at a specific place and time? If so, knowing Eve well for uncounted time observing her in pre-mortal life, knowing the place and time He put her in, and knowing the adversary, couldn't He simply have picked the correct person for the job at hand, knowing with almost total certainity what the end result would be?

[JLHPROF]

Could this be said like  this?  Eve was the first to enter into the covenant of redemption.  

If so, how come I've never seen it quite like that before?  Is it because it is always couched with transgression or sin?  Would this really be doctrine?  

 

I consider it doctrine and both scriptural and canonical.  Still, we shouldn't ignore the fact that a transgression of law (sin) had to occur to necessitate the covenant's existence in the first place.  But yes, Eve put into place by her actions the entire plan of salvation determined before we ever came to earth and became the first partaker of that covenant.

[CV75]

Though I don't share your certainty in your interpretations, they are nonetheless worthy of consideration.

Oh my... my certainty has nothing to do with my interpretations; they have to stand by themselves. After all, my remarks are almost always prefixed with "I think..." I think countering them is one way of considering them, but real interest is reflected in asking questions.

[CV75]

Could this be said like  this?  Eve was the first to enter into the covenant of redemption.  

If so, how come I've never seen it quite like that before?  Is it because it is always couched with transgression or sin?  Would this really be doctrine?  

Eve was the first to do, say and cause many wonderful things, all of which took place after the transgression. They are mentioned, as far as I can tell, whenever she is spoken of by LDS leaders. For example, Moses 5:11-12; 4:26; . I hesitate to speak too much of the temple, but I think her key role is more explicitly represented in the covenants made there.

 

If you've watched the temple presentation, it is exactly what you have seen it before (Eve being the first to enter into the covenant of redemption). next time you go, look for it and listen to the words as well.

[mtomm]

But who else uses the phrase covenant of redemption?