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

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So your endowment was even taken out well before the differences between man and woman were softened.  If you think back on THAT endowment you should have an even clearer view of the topic of your thread.  Post 1990 many things that upset members were softened or removed.

And if Buckeye is right they may have further things removed to make people more comfortable.

Yes, I remember before 1990 and many things that were scary and offensive were removed.  Much of this was put into place by BY, who collected women like cattle.  BY also added the oath against the United States that was taken out in the 1930s.  For a scared ordnance, it sure has gone through many changes.  Now, at least for the most part it has been revamped to be more politically correct.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

In what way is there a loss of love?  Between who?  Who stops sharing and when?  ditto for respect.  

No relationship should lord one over the other 

[Storm Rider]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No relationship should lord one over the other 

I understand that you are opposed to the word lord being used.  What you said is that when one is lord over another that it lessens love, sharing and respect.  I am trying to understand why you think this is so.  Just telling me that being a lord somehow lessens good qualities in a relationship does not answer your statement.  

In addition, being the Lord does not seem to lessen the love shared between Jesus and each of his disciples, nor their sharing or respect.  I propose that this example proves your proposal is wrong.

It may also help if you explain what you mean by being a lord in one's house.  How does it that relationship look to you?  I suspect that you hyper-focused on only one side of the relationship and forgetting the obligations of the husband to the wife.  

I see it the two roles as equal and only together do they make a whole entity.  I suspect that this is the diametric opposite of how you see the relationship.  

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No relationship should lord one over the other 

Christ is my Lord.  Heavenly Father is his Lord.  We still have a positive relationship.  Why does someone presiding over someone else damage a relationship if both are good people?

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, I remember before 1990 and many things that were scary and offensive were removed.  Much of this was put into place by BY, who collected women like cattle.  BY also added the oath against the United States that was taken out in the 1930s.  For a scared ordnance, it sure has gone through many changes.  Now, at least for the most part it has been revamped to be more politically correct.

Isaiah 24:5

Almost every change in the Church from the restored version has come because members have complained.  God gives us what we want, whether right or wrong.

 

[mapman]

There is tension between these two ideas found in the scriptures:

"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 more intelligent than they all." (Abraham 3:19)

"[The Lord] 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." (2 Nephi 26:33)

One could certainly argue that these two doctrines aren't contradictory, but we can see that in our church that when we focus on the great chain of being (as expressed in the first scripture) we tend to not live up to the ideal of equality that is expressed in the second scripture. The chain of being doctrine was used to justify the priesthood/temple ban of people of African descent because there was supposed to be a hierarchy of races. And not to long ago it was used by church officials to argue against equality in marriage, the husband was over the wife. Nowadays we try to incorporate both sentiments, as can be seen in the Proclamation to the World on the family: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness... In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." We'll have to see how it all turns out.

My personal opinion is that there is truth in both ways of thinking. Joseph Smith saw hierarchy as vitally important and a kind of key to understanding the eternities. There was a great chain of intelligences, kingdoms, Gospel principles, priesthoods, etc. This idea for me seems beautiful and rings true to me, and I think that the way that the church is set up in a hierarchical system is by divine design. That being said, Joseph Smith also seemed to put women on the chain below men (temple endowment and Doctrine and Covenants 132 show this most clearly), and that honestly bothers me. Joseph Smith was also a champion of egalitarianism, the most prominent example that comes to mind is his anti-slavery position near the end of his life. Anyways, I understand why people are bothered by the hierarchy between men and women in the temple, and can see how discomfort can come from a dearly held religious belief that is just as thoroughly Mormon as a belief in hierarchy.

[Jeanne]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ is my Lord.  Heavenly Father is his Lord.  We still have a positive relationship.  Why does someone presiding over someone else damage a relationship if both are good people?

And He is our Lord..not husband over wife.  As you say, both are good but only as good as equal.My father is an example as a"lord"..we are talking smashed coffee pots and bruises.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And He is our Lord..not husband over wife.  As you say, both are good but only as good as equal.My father is an example as a"lord"..we are talking smashed coffee pots and bruises.

Christ is the husband.  The Church is the wife.  Christ presides over his wife.

Or if you want to get more literal, Mary was his wife and she addressed him as Lord (and Master).  If your Father was a bad example of a righteous head that doesn't make the principle any less valid.  But I am sorry for what you had to go through as a result.

Edited January 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ is the husband.  The Church is the wife.  Christ presides over his wife.

Or if you want to get more literal, Mary was his wife and she addressed him as Lord (and Master).  If your Father was a bad example of a righteous head that doesn't make the principle any less valid.  But I am sorry for what you had to go through as a result.

I just feel that what BY said and what you are saying are two different things.  I respect what you are saying.  My experience I am sure makes a difference in how I interpret things.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ is my Lord.  Heavenly Father is his Lord.  We still have a positive relationship.  Why does someone presiding over someone else damage a relationship if both are good people?

I think there are two differences that a lot of women struggle with.  

1).  You are not in an equal relationship with Heavenly Father and Christ.  You are subordinate to them.  It is a parent/child relationship.  Parent/child relationships in marriage are unhealthy though.  When those kinds of marriages exist they are a symptom of a failing of one or both of the spouses.  No mentally stable and emotionally mature woman wants to be married to her father.  

2).  Husbands are not Christ or Heavenly Father.  There is a reason that we gladly claim Jesus as Lord, that we submit to our Father in Heaven-they are our superior in every single way and their love is perfect because they are perfect.  In a marriage, those reasons don't exist.  He is not superior to her in any way and his love is not perfect (not even close, just as her's isn't) because he is far from perfection in every other way as well.   If Christ was just as flawed as you are, and even more flawed in some ways, and did nothing for you that you also did not do for him in equal measure, would it still be so easy to have Him as your Lord?  Would it make any sense to cultivate that kind of a relationship?

Edited January 1, 2016 by bluebell

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And He is our Lord..not husband over wife.  As you say, both are good but only as good as equal.My father is an example as a"lord"..we are talking smashed coffee pots and bruises.

Now, to argue the other side  -

Such a father is not an example of what it is to be a Lord as far as the scriptures and teachings of the church are concerned.  Using him as an example of a lord is like using someone from the westboro baptist church as an example of a Christian.  

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Now, to argue the other side  -

Such a father is not an example of what it is to be a Lord as far as the scriptures and teachings of the church are concerned.  Using him as an example of a lord is like using someone from the westboro baptist church as an example of a Christian.  

I so agree...that being said, it was all I know.

[Tacenda]

dbl post

Edited January 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I so agree...that being said, it was all I know.

Sorry you had that happen Jeanne.  In the Ted Talk, the Bible scriptures surely did an injustice to women.  And according to Jimmy Carter, men really don't care enough about it.  Maybe it's in their DNA.  

Also, not to slam my husband and brother in law, but they being Priesthood holders, seemed to not treat my sister and I as well as my other sisters husbands who didn't hold it.  They seemed to have very equal and caring/loving relationships.  That use to bother me quite a bit, but I'm not behind closed doors with them.  

Edited January 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think there are two differences that a lot of women struggle with.  

1).  You are not in an equal relationship with Heavenly Father and Christ.  You are subordinate to them.  It is a parent/child relationship.  Parent/child relationships in marriage are unhealthy though.  When those kinds of marriages exist they are a symptom of a failing of one or both of the spouses.  No mentally stable and emotionally mature woman wants to be married to her father.  

2).  Husbands are not Christ or Heavenly Father.  There is a reason that we gladly claim Jesus as Lord, that we submit to our Father in Heaven-they are our superior in every single way and their love is perfect because they are perfect.  In a marriage, those reasons don't exist.  He is not superior to her in any way and his love is not perfect (not even close, just as her's isn't) because he is far from perfection in every other way as well.   If Christ was just as flawed as you are, and even more flawed in some ways, and did nothing for you that you also did not do for him in equal measure, would it still be so easy to have Him as your Lord?  Would it make any sense to cultivate that kind of a relationship?

Here's another way to approach this situation: If the husband ultimately fulfills the measure of his divine destiny by becoming perfect in all the attributes of godliness, truly becoming one in every sense of the word with the Father and the Son (which we are constantly taught is definitely achievable), then the unequal marital dynamic which you lament will no longer be an issue. So prior to that perfect day, when the husband is filled with all the eternal fullness of Christ and God, why not treat the imperfect earthly husband as if that future day of perfection will surely come to pass? I believe I once heard a General Authority say the wife should treat the husband to whom she is sealed as if he were already a heavenly king, and the husband should likewise treat his earthly wife as if she were already a crowned and enthroned heavenly queen. If both the husband and the wife engage in the noble effort with great faith and a perfect brightness of hope, treating each other, as Paul said, "with all due reverence," then life on earth could become a foretaste of the celestial marital bliss to come. 

So many controversial and divisive issues need not be such, as long as they are viewed and understood with spiritual eyes of holiness and virtue. But since it seems many would rather dwell on the negativity of the dark side of life and revel with delight in the pools of enmity that flow from the imperfect perspectives of the fallen nature, there will many who will elect to not pass through the strait gate and narrow path that leads to eternal marital happiness and family life.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Spelling correction

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Here's another way to approach this situation: If the husband ultimately fulfills the measure of his divine destiny by becoming perfect in all the attributes of godliness, truly becoming one in every sense of the word with the Father and the Son (which we are constantly taught is definitely achievable), then the unequal marital dynamic which you lament will no longer be an issue. So prior to that perfect day, when the husband is filled with all the eternal fullness of Christ and God, why not treat the imperfect earthly husband as if that future day of perfection will surely come to pass?

Well, this brings up the obvious questions.

Why not treat the imperfect earthly wife as a Lord, since some day in the future she will be perfect and one with Christ?  Why is only the husband to be treated, in mortality, as if that future day of perfection will surely come to pass?  Why do we not treat the wife equally, since her potential is completely equal with the potential of her husband?

Quote

I believe I once heard a General Authority say the wife should treat the husband to whom she is sealed as if he were already a heavenly king, and the husband should likewise treat his earthly wife as if she were already a crowned and enthroned heavenly queen. If both the husband and the wife engage in the noble effort with great faith and a perfect brightness of hope, treating each other, as Paul said, "with all due reverence," then life on earth could become a foretaste of the celestial marital bliss to come. 

I agree.  So why don't we treat the wife as a Lord since that is how we are asked to treat the husband?

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Well, this brings up the obvious questions.

Why not treat the imperfect earthly wife as a Lord, since some day in the future she will be perfect and one with Christ?  Why is only the husband to be treated, in mortality, as if that future day of perfection will surely come to pass?  Why do we not treat the wife equally, since her potential is completely equal with the potential of her husband?

I agree.  So why don't we treat the wife as a Lord since that is how we are asked to treat the husband?

 

There can't be two presiding priesthood leaders serving in a given position at the same time. That's why there aren't two bishops serving in a ward, two stake presidents serving in a stake, and two Church presidents called to preside over the Church at the same time. To call two bishops, two stake presidents and two Church presidents to serve simultaneously in the same position would be an invitation to chaos. Even if women were to ordaimed to offices in the priesthood some day, only one priesthood holder could preside over a family at the same a time. So I'm not sure how that would work.

And by the way, what is it you didn't get about the husband treating the wife as if she were already a crowned and enthroned heavenly queen? In doing so, the husband acknowledges the wife's queenly station and makes her an indispensable counselor in a presidency where all decisions must be reached and decided upon in unison.

Treating the wife as a queen is no less important than the wife treating the husband as a king (I.e. lord). Both positions have an authority that needs be shown reverence and respect, but only one can ultimately preside. Andi in his wisdom God left that role to the men so there wouldn't a great inequality in the marital relationship, for if women were to preside even after bearing and nurturing the children, men would be relegated to be little more than human drones. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Spelling

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

There can't be two presiding priesthood leaders serving in a given position at the same time. That's why there aren't two bishops serving in a ward, two stake presidents serving in a stake, and two Church presidents called to preside over the Church at the same time. To call two bishops, two stake presidents and two Church presidents to serve simultaneously in the same position would be an invitation to chaos. Even if women were to ordaimed to offices in the priesthood some day, only one priesthood holder could preside over a family at the same a time. So I'm not sure how that would work.

Fair enough.  Bishops, stake presidents, etc., all take turns presiding.  Why would that not be possible in a family?  Why, in a family, does it have to be the same person all the time, every time, forever and ever?

ANd to be clear, this discussion has nothing to do with women being ordained.  

Quote

And by the way, what is it you didn't get about the husband treating the wife as if she were already a crowned and enthroned heavenly queen? In doing so, the husband acknowledges the wife's queenly station and makes her an indispensable counselor in a presidency where all decisions must be reached and decided upon in unison.

What is it you don't get about how there is no teaching that a woman is to be treated as a Lord (or whatever the female equivalent of that is, and it's not 'lady') even though there are teachings that a man should be treated like that?  Why is the husband the president and the wife a counselor?  There is a reason that Christ reigns over us.  There is a reason that God the Father reigns over us.  There is no reason for a husband to reign permanently over his wife.

Quote

Treating the wife as a queen is no less important than the wife treating the husband as a king (I.e. lord). Both positions have an authority that needs be shown reverence and respect, but only one can ultimately preside. Andin his wisdom God left that role to the men so there wouldn't a great inequality in the marital relationship, for if women were to preside even after bearing and nurturing the children, men would be relegated to be little more than human drones. 

Maybe, but let's acknowledge that this is your opinion only.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not worth arguing over.

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why is the husband the president and the wife a counselor?

Eternal order?

Quote

 There is a reason that Christ reigns over us. 

And a reason he is the bridegroom and we are the bride.

[Bobbieaware]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Fair enough.  Bishops, stake presidents, etc., all take turns presiding.  Why would that not be possible in a family?  Why, in a family, does it have to be the same person all the time, every time, forever and ever?

ANd to be clear, this discussion has nothing to do with women being ordained.  

What is it you don't get about how there is no teaching that a woman is to be treated as a Lord (or whatever the female equivalent of that is, and it's not 'lady') even though there are teachings that a man should be treated like that?  Why is the husband the president and the wife a counselor?  There is a reason that Christ reigns over us.  There is a reason that God the Father reigns over us.  There is no reason for a husband to reign permanently over his wife.

Maybe, but let's acknowledge that this is your opinion only.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not worth arguing over.

I already explained why. If women were to preside over the family while also bearing and nurturing the children, there would be a great inequality in the marital relationship and men would become little more than emasculated human drones.

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

And in his wisdom God left that role to the men so there wouldn't a great inequality in the marital relationship, for if women were to preside even after bearing and nurturing the children, men would be relegated to be little more than human drones. 

I changed my mind.  I do think this is a point worth arguing over.  Thinking about about it for a while, whether you are right or wrong, it's no justification for the way that Heavenly Father has set things up.  In fact if you're right, it makes Heavenly Father look like a misogynist of the worst kind.

What you've essentially said is that God put men in charge because the chances for abuse of the system if women were in charge is too great.  However, we know right now that the actuality (meaning it has happened and will continue to happen) for abuse of women by people using religious teaching as the primary justification in the current system is HUGE.  So huge that women have been abused for probably 90% of recorded history (and that's a low estimate from my perspective having a degree in history).

So please don't tell me that 'in in His wisdom' God would never set up a religion where it's easy for men to be the victim of inequality when we know He did set up a system where it's easy for women to be the victim of inequality.  

When you say that you are saying that God cares more about men than He does about women.

 

 

[Buckeye]

Here's an easy way to share presiding. In the a.m., the wife is the acting president. She calls the family together for prayer and oversees couple scripture reading. In the p.m., the husband is acting president. He calls on family prayer and oversees evening family scripture study. Every year or so they switch positions. This system works well for my family. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I changed my mind.  I do think this is a point worth arguing over.  Thinking about about it for a while, whether you are right or wrong, it's no justification for the way that Heavenly Father has set things up.  In fact if you're right, it makes Heavenly Father look like a misogynist of the worst kind.

And extremely derogatory of men to since it implies they would be unable to find meaningful labour to contribute without being assigned to preside in the home.

[salgare]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

for if women were to preside even after bearing and nurturing the children, men would be relegated to be little more than human drones. 

Hmm,the rancher indeed only needs that one fertile bull in a field.