Adam is the Lord over the earth in the temple, is my husband my Lord on earth?

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If you can figure a way to make the maintenance group perform quickly and complete the job the first time, please tell your bishop.  He would be glad to know about it.  It seems to be a pervasive problem in ward house maintenance throughout the Church. 

Oh for heaven's sakes Storm..can't you take a razz?  I know about maintenance problems.  Back in the day, my grandparents took care of the church..yard, cleaning and maintenance..this was when they got paid..not volunteers.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

Quote

I worked hard and voted with my feet - I left when there was no opportunity.  

That option wouldn't exactly work with the Church though, would it?  There is no one true and living investment firm in which God is well pleased that we know of.

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh for heaven's sakes Storm..can't you take a razz?  I know about maintenance problems.  Back in the day, my grandparents took care of the church..yard, cleaning and maintenance..this was when they got paid..not volunteers.

I was talking about the professional maintenance group in the Church.  I was not being flip, rather i was being serious.  They drove me crazy because they just seem to never get to very easy, but major issues.  Granted one of them was a repair that was deemed too expensive for the age of the building.  

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I was talking about the professional maintenance group in the Church.  I was not being flip, rather i was being serious.  They drove me crazy because they just seem to never get to very easy, but major issues.  Granted one of them was a repair that was deemed too expensive for the age of the building.  

my apologies,  In my original post above, I was just playing around.  I wanted you to know that.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Do you believe women will have the priesthood power in the next life?

I believe they have it in this life.

But that's not what seems to be being asked for - and I fully recognize that we cannot apply any one motive to all - that all have different motivations.  However:

If it is the right to preside they are after social or political control.

If it is ordination to office, not the power, they are after position.

If it is a voice, they are after either democratic representation or control, neither of which are how gospel principles operate in God's kingdom (common consent aside).

If it is the right to contribute, they have as much opportunity to serve as any man, maybe more, just in different roles.

It is not enough that they have access now to all the same powers of the priesthood as men and potential for godhood in the world to come.  The women in this Church should be seeking to become Eves, Emma's, Eliza's, Mary and Martha's.  Instead they seem to want to be Adams, Joseph's and Brigham's as well.  Honorable intentions to be sure, but misled.

Women have priesthood power.  The temple is clear on this.  Where they are limited is in ecclesiastical authority, and that should be an entirely different area of discussion.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That option wouldn't exactly work with the Church though, would it?  There is no one true and living investment firm in which God is well pleased that we know of.

sure, there are others.

Speaking to nursing rooms.  Old school knew how to do it.  The Chapel building I was raised in (Va.) had a large accordion sliding divider between the Chapel and the Gym.  On the second floor on the one end was the primary room with all wooden chairs.  Then the stairs, then a door to a narrow room the width of the chapel, with a large window overlooking the chapel, with a single chapel bench the length of the room.  The women could then listen via speakers and watch the whole congregation and stand.  There was then another door to a balcony pathway that ran the length of the gym, then to some steps out a side door.

Heber City still has a working Chapel identical, other than missing the balcony runway .... I mean mean runway, as us little kids were in/out of the nursing room and racing down the gym balcony.  Kids heaven. The whole nursing thing just being natural and unnoticed for the passer through.

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by salgare

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

If it is the right to preside they are after social or political control.

If it is ordination to office, not the power, they are after position.

 

 

And this applies only to women because they don't have it . . . ?

What about the men?

So men aren't after social or political control because they already have the right to preside?

And men aren't after position because they are already ordained to priesthood office?

I am not buying this.

 

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And this applies only to women because they don't have it . . . ?

What about the men?

So men aren't after social or political control because they already have the right to preside?

And men aren't after position because they are already ordained to priesthood office?

I am not buying this.

 

Anyone who seeks more authority than what God has chosen to bless them with usually has a reason for wanting authority God has chosen to withhold.

I'm not an apostle.  If I sought to be an apostle and it wasn't God's will for me, I would be seeking something amiss.  And a desire for something amiss usually comes with motivations not from God.

[consiglieri]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Anyone who seeks more authority than what God has chosen to bless them with usually has a reason for wanting authority God has chosen to withhold.

You mean like equality?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, consiglieri said:

You mean like equality?

Equality is not a gospel principle.  Never has been.  Abraham was told that by God.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Equality is not a gospel principle.  Never has been.  Abraham was told that by God.

                        

• 2 Nephi 26:33

  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Edited January 5, 2016 by consiglieri

[JLHPROF]

Just now, consiglieri said:

                       

• 2 Nephi 26:33

  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

That refers to the most basic principles of the gospel - salvation.  It also refers to equality in judgment under law.

Abraham 3:

•  16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
•  19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am amore intelligent than they all.
• 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
• 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

D&C 121

• 34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Alma 13

• 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

No, we didn't start off equal.  We won't finish equal.  "All are alike" and "no respecter of persons" refers to everyone being subject to the same laws and judgments and having access to God.  It does not refer to everyone being equal in all things.

[consiglieri]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, we didn't start off equal.  We won't finish equal.  "All are alike" and "no respecter of persons" refers to everyone being subject to the same laws and judgments and having access to God.  It does not refer to everyone being equal in all things.

So what did women do that makes them treated so unequally in the Church?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

So what did women do that makes them treated so unequally in the Church?

Why do you assume punishment?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So what did women do that makes them treated so unequally in the Church?

 

This concept of equality being limited strictly to being able to do what someone else does is very strange, yet so many people are enrolled into pushing it as the only rational way to view society and its organization.  

Is a hand unequal to a foot?  I think of them as equally important to the body, but they fulfill totally different roles.  Should all body parts be identical in form and function in order for equality to reign?  Of course not, no more than every person should be identical in function to everyone else.  Why is equality so limited and, in reality impossible to achieve? This pseudo-equality is anything but equality, but a sure path to utter societal failure. 

I believe that true equality has more to do with self-value and being valued for function by others rather than being able to "do" what someone else does.  This is such a strange philosophy that has taken hold and so few question it.  I recently read some of James Kalb's writings.  He addresses this PC penchant for equality, diversification, and inclusiveness.  Interesting author.  

Regardless, I don't think that our Father in Heaven views a man superior to a woman - they both are created in the image of God.  Yet, they have different roles to fulfill and both are equally required to make a family whole - yes, I know that flies in the face of the new definitions of "family" and I am not interested in making this another SSM article - male and female joined together make a whole unit capable of participating in the procreative process with God.  

All can criticize and find fault with anything and we have heard a deluge of criticism on the shortfalls of humans in the family unit from abusive fathers/husbands to .....everything else.  However, none of that criticism belies the reality that the family unit is the best building block of a civil society.  The criticism does do some good things; it serves as an invitation to be better as husbands and wives and fathers and mothers. 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why do you assume punishment?

Because those who think along such lines must of necessity put the worst possible spin on just about everything related to the Church so as to justify the momentous, life-altering decisions they've made.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Equality is not a gospel principle.  Never has been.  Abraham was told that by God.

Actually he told us that our natural state is inequality but we are expected to fix it and become one in temporal and spiritual things.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So what did women do that makes them treated so unequally in the Church?

Refused to date me.

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Refused to date me.

haven't the men done the same?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

haven't the men done the same?

Not sure, I have only asked a few men out on dates so sample size is not large enough to establish any conclusions.

[BlueDreams]

stormrider, I'm doing this from my phone and it's glitChing with formatting. Keeps trying to quote tacenda for some reason. So your comments are in italics:

 

There are many responses to what you bring up.  First, does feminism have a definition or is it so broad that anyone can call themselves a feminist if they simply like women and believe that they should be cared for?  

No, the wording for that would likely be mildly offensive or at least poorly worded to most feminists, imo. The basic definition would be someone who desire greater equity among the genders (how this is done and what this looks like is where variance happens). My personal biggie, that directly effects my work, is helping women to be empowered and assertive in their decisions and desires for their life. This entails working through cultural and personal beliefs that impinge this. 

The broader the definition the more impossible it is to paint with a broad brush stroke when making generalizations such as I did in my previous edit.  Overly narrow generalizations then excludes the too many that rightfully should be considered feminists.

Maybe then it would be better to not make overly broad generalizations about a diverse group of people. Most likely, ones bound to be wrong on it.

 

I personally don't like the term because I don't know what opposes feminism.  I don't like these types of labels generally because they are so divisive and I find they are most often counter-productive to the health of a society and culture - not just feminism, but all -isms like it.

I generally have mixed feelings about labels. There's always problem with naming things, But I also find power in them. Not sure if I follow your point on this though. 

I don't think a man should be one-sidedly dependent upon a woman, but those are just descriptions of unhealthy relationships.  I think we should focus on ideals and pursue those qualities rather than invent divisions based on the unhealthy actions of the minority.

I was thinking my female overly dependent on a male...which is far more common. But no, that isn't just the definition of an unhealthy relationship...it's usually founded on cultural practices, pressures, and beliefs that severely limit the capacity of women and can leads rigid/unhealthy boundaries for men as well. I have seen people in unhealthy relationships a ton (kinda in the job description). Many of these are maintained by gendered concepts that limit their experiences and capacity, maintaining the toxicity in their relationship. This is by far not a "minority" experience nor is it invented and can effect both men and women. 

This past week I saw a picture of a recent world political meeting in Europe.  ... This type of feminism is illogical.  Gender does not qualify one for expertise in any field.  If you have the expertise then you should be qualified to serve.  

I know a few have answered this and a lot have had great answers to it. I figure I'll throw in my 2 cents. First there's seems to be an irony to me that we, as a religious body often proclaim the essential nature of both genders, that their unique experiences are valuable, etc...but in the same breath it seems that the necessity of women's perspectives in the development/maintenance of social structures (like politics) is somehow not as necessary. I've taken entire courses that explain their necessity, but the one that sticks out to me is the simple global trend that the most stable and least violent societies are the ones where their is greater equity between men and women. In politics these voices and their differing perspectives would absolutely be needed for just about any decision that would have an effect on their lives and capacity to create stable homes and thriving children. I don't think that gender should be the "over-riding" factor. But to me, if i truly believe in the essential nature of gender then we should believe that that it is essential in creating both stronger homes and communities, whether local or global

e

[Storm Rider]

I don't disagree with what you have said and I suspect we think similarly on most things.  

Though the issue about complaining about a picture of just men in a meeting or even one of just women does not indicate that something is wrong.  It does not reveal who is on their staff, from where they have received input and how things are moving forward.  

Some of the most stable civilizations in earths history were not ones where proportional representation was present.  Leaders and good ideas are what has always worked and those don't have a gender.  

A true home does not exist without a mother in it. I think the same could be said for a community.  Influences of both male and female should be involved.  

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why do you assume punishment?

I assume only the opposite of privilege.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why do you assume punishment?

Aren't women punished for partaking of the fruit first?  And that's why we obey the counsel of our husband as he obeys the counsel of Lord, in the temple?  Also, our punishment to suffer in childbirth?  I guess according to the Bible, Eve did a very bad thing.

But how much in Genesis came from God and isn't just man made to keep women down?

Unless it came directly from Adam and Eve, no-one knows, but it has been the driving force that has kept women in subjectivity and silenced in places all over the world.  

How scripture can harm women since their existence is pretty scary.  Even in LDS scriptures, they cause harm.  Such as D&C 132, and it's lasting effect on Mormon fundamentalists.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

How scripture can harm women since their existence is pretty scary.  Even in LDS scriptures, they cause harm.  Such as D&C 132, and it's lasting effect on Mormon fundamentalists.

I think the problem is that we have no way to interpret most scripture from a woman's point of view. 

I was reading the book of Ezra last week and one of the chapters was really frustrating.  In chapter 10, Ezra is lamenting that the Israelites had begun to take spouses from nonbelievers (basically pagans).  Both Israelite men and women were guilty of this offense (which they had specifically been told not to do previously).

Ezra's solution to this sin is to make all the men swear to abandon their non member wives (even if they have children by them).  As a woman, this is incredibly difficult to read on a few different levels.  

1)  I'm guessing that abandoned women, in the culture of the era, were pretty low on the totem pole.  No way to support themselves, no property, and disgraced.  2)  That these 'righteous' men could do this so easily implies that they saw their wives as little more than property.  3)  No Israelite women were asked to give up their non member husbands.  Apparently they don't actually matter to Ezra or to God.  

But all of this isn't that bad to acknowledge knowing that the bible is probably not the most trustworthy document when it comes to understanding God's dealings with His daughters.  However, none of the lesson manuals dealing with Ezra even attempt to talk about the situation.  It's a nonissue was far as the church correlation committee is concerned.  So i'm left with what is presented as an important event in the bible with no way to interpret it other than that God does not care about women (which i don't believe).

I don't blame the church and I don't blame men.  I think it's an example of where the gospel message, as it has been presented in the past, is falling short for women.  I don't believe that that is how God wants it.  There is so much more to understand, but putting our heads in the sand and pretending that there isn't doesn't help anything.