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

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Equal decision making in creating worlds and ruling as an exalted man. They want to be prayed to also.

For all we know they will. For all we know Mom and Dad switch off between worlds. In any case being omniscient means they both hear all prayers equally. I doubt exalted men or women are petty enough to have to have their gender addressed in a prayer to hear and respond.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ya, I wish the endowment ceremony didn't make women feel less special than men. Some women even claim they feel bad when they have to veil their faces. I don't see why that would upset someone though. I think it'd be cool if I had to do it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I have never heard of the oath that was taken out in the 1930s,,,Wow..why am I surprised?

The one where all they do is ask the Lord to avenge the murders of JS and his brother?  Really?  It is talked about a lot.  I am surprised you haven't heard it.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

 

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would like to think if I were in a relationship with children that I bring a little more to the table then choosing who prays.

Of course. That's part of what holding the priesthood is all about. But for many years the leaders of the Church have taught the members about the most special and sacred role of motherhood and how men hold offices in the priesthood is in an equally sacred and complementary role to motherhood. This is nothing new and should be a surprise to no one. But when some Church members hear this familiar teaching in today's politically correct, secular feminist world they go ballistic and act like they never heard such teaching many times before. Based on such demonstrations, it"s obvious to me that in the not too distant future the active membership of the Chuch is going to be very bitterly divided.

[salgare]

Bobbieaware.

As to my offensiveness, let me assume on the other hand that it was not so much the swearing, but just an anti-Mormon throwing out old bullet item lists of anti-Mormon negativity which has offended:

In this particular case, I've given you a bullet item list of my current reality.

Being baby boomers, righteousness was partly judged by rather the woman was in the home or not.  We were righteous and raised with these teachings and example.  The explosion of single mothers and the cost of living requiring two incomes  the Church did back down on public discourses of a mother staying in the home, but the underlying doctrines remain unchanged.

When the children all left the nest some 30 years later, it was a horrible time for my wife (still is to some extent) as she has no education, no work experience and now no children to consume her time and interests.  It so happens my wife and I continued a strong love for each through the years.  Her best friend, of many years in the same situation other than their love turned to hate.  Both my wife and her friend are stuck as far as any good choices for their own freedom independent of their husbands wills/choices. 

I'm a horrible male chauvinist even to this day, as we have become so comfortable in our expected roles these 35 years.  Hopefully I'm better than I was (and the expletive/punishment mentioned totally fits).  At least I love my love and she loves me, her friend is nowhere near as lucky.  What a horrible prison this can be for women.

My wife see's the traits/situation her daughter is in.  I see the same for son-in-law and myself.  It's like looking in a mirror 25 years ago.  And for my princess grand daughter, I'd don't know for sure, I have not been to church in ages, but I assume the songs, lessons, testimonies in primary have changed little from when I would walk my own daughter their.

This is one prayer my wife and I could kneel side by side: Dear Father, please don't let our grand daughter marry the type of man her grand father is.

The submissiveness to men indoctrinated into innocence children is the offensive thing here Bobbie.

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by salgare
fixed spelling, I had no intention of the anti-moron spelling

[Calm]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

 

The mindless cycle of indoctrination continues unabated.

 

More examples of mindless indoctrination for you to share with your wife from faithful women in the Church (the first was promoted on the Church's website when it first came out, btw):

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

Quote

There has been some recent press that sort of alleged that the LDS church is sort of oppressive, or that it is stodgily conservative, or that it somehow might be a “toxic” environment for women to participate in. And I just think about that, with maybe a couple of colorful exceptions, my experience in the church as a woman has been incredibly empowering. Of course everything I’m going to talk about is my own experience. There are two sections of this talk. The first part I want to talk about is the doctrine and why the doctrine about women is important. And in the second piece I want to talk about practice and how we actually put our doctrine into practice, and some of the things that we might be able to do that could improve the way that we live up to our doctrine.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees
 

Quote

 

I didn’t join the Church because I was a feminist, but I stay in the Church because I am a feminist. And what I’d like to do to begin my talk is to review the main points of LDS doctrine that make this a revolutionary religion from a feminine perspective.

 

 

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

Of course. That's part of what holding the priesthood is all about. But for many years the leaders of the Church have taught the members about the most special and sacred role of motherhood and how men hold offices in the priesthood is in an equally sacred and complementary role to motherhood. This is nothing new and should be a surprise to no one. But when some Church members hear this familiar teaching in today's politically correct, secular feminist world they go ballistic and act like they never heard such teaching many times before. Based on such demonstrations, it"s obvious to me that in the not too distant future the active membership of the Chuch is going to be very bitterly divided.

I have heard this teaching many times but as far as I can tell it is not scripturally supported and while apostles have spoken on it most of what I heard comes from people talking in sacrament meeting.

[salgare]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

More examples of mindless indoctrination for you to share with your wife from faithful women in the Church (the first was promoted on the Church's website when it first came out, btw):

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees
 

 

Calm,

I made it to just over 12 minutes into the first talk (50, single, no children).  This woman could not relate to my wife, nor my concerns of indoctrinating her own children or grandchildren into her "Womans Church".  I fear "My Wife as a Woman's Church" is a different experience.

checking out the second one now.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church is the bride.  I don't think i've ever seen a scripture teaching that each individual person is a bride, but i'm open for correction on that if you can provide a reference.  We are in a covenant relationship with Him for sure, but that seems to be where the analogy ends in terms of usefulness, especially in this day and age where women don't need to be married to gain social status, legitimacy, and financial security from their husbands like they had to back in Jesus' day.  

In your point though, men are just as much brides as women are.  So again we are left with the deficit that doesn't seem to have an answer.  Why do men get to rule and women get to be subordinate?  Men, being brides themselves in the gospel and therefore on the exact same footing as women in every way, justify no reason to be proxy's of Christ for women. 

Yes, in the analogy male and female members form the Church that Christ presides over.

But the point remains - the bridegroom ALWAYS presides over the bride, whether we are speaking eternal symbolism (as Christ and the Church) or temple endowment, or sealing ceremony.

It very well may be sexist.  But just as with the lack of female ordination provides evidence for that discrepancy, the lack of females presiding over males also provides evidence.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, salgare said:

This woman could not relate to my wife

So you know this woman's heart and mind after little over 12 minutes and can't be bothered to actually listen to her for any longer to hear her experience as well as her relating stories of other women around the world.

You are right, you are a "horrible male chauvinist".

PS:  considering how children learn more from what we do than what we say, you are likely to have a hard time actually teaching your granddaughters you have much respect for women's opinions and experiences. (I am being blunt because it appears to matter to you so much at least intellectually)

Edited January 2, 2016 by Calm

[salgare]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you know this woman's heart and mind after little over 12 minutes and can't be bothered to actually listen to her for any longer to hear her experience as well as her relating stories of other women around the world.

You are right, you are a "horrible male chauvinist".

PS:  considering how children learn more from what we do than what we say, you are likely to have a hard time actually teaching your granddaughters you have much respect for women's opinions and experiences. (I am being blunt because it appears to matter to you so much at least intellectually)

Calm,

I'm sure she has a wonderful heart and great mind.   I was trying to show you the respect of considering the references that you have given me in connection to this discussion at hand.

Perhaps you could focus/narrow these references to the content pertinent to your point so that I don't have to go through two 50 minutes presentations to try and find what you are referring to.

And I know am not a good man Calm.  Please continue to remind me as I falter. And feel free to note copies to other threads as well in case there are others that should see it.

[Calm]

Quote

Perhaps you could focus/narrow these references to the content pertinent to your point so that I don't have to go through two 50 minutes presentations to try and find what you are referring to.

Both of the talks are developments of the idea of what the Church/Gospel as taught by the Church means for women and men and how it can be and is at times properly expressed.  Picking out a quote here and there will lose that development.

I wanted you to see how different women view the Church and what their and other women's role in it can be.  It won't work to give it to you piecemeal.  Limiting it to less than one hour can only share their concepts in a minimal way, but at least provides a foundation to start from.

[Storm Rider]

I guess I don't get the whole thing and why this keeps coming up for women and the men that wave this flag.  My wife is educated and a professional.  However, when we had children she was a mother at home and her focus was on making a home a real home.  She did not return to work until after our children were out of high school.  She just enjoys having something to do during the day.  

Although I was recognized as the head of the home there was never a moment in our lives that I made the decisions unilaterally.  In our marriage we recognized that we each brought different levels of expertise to the home and we focused on each using our strengths to make the home function better.  For example, I am a better cook than my wife so I did most of the cooking.  My wife was more interested in managing our finances so she did.  We both cleaned the home, but she did more than I did.  I took care of the outside of the home until she decided she enjoyed yard work and then she assisted as she chose.  

It seems like there is this bizarre need for equality without ever explaining what equality is.  Further, there is this apparent desire to make the sexes exactly the same and god forbid acknowledging the reality that men and women are different and have different roles.  This ill-thought out push to make women be exactly like men is wrong-headed and never produces....men.  It produces women who don't know how to be a women because they are so confused and it produces men who don't know what the heck they are supposed to do with this being that is a woman who acts like a man or at least tries to and does it poorly.  

The media and academia has been pushing the concept that there is no difference between men and women - that they are equal i.e. the same for decades and we wonder why our society is so fragmented, families destroyed, and children suffer and continue to suffer.  They never explain what "the same" is or they never want to admit that men are not women and women are not men.  

I still believe that genders have roles to play and they have worked well to produce successful families for thousands of years and God is the author of those roles.  At no point has my wife ever walked behind me; she walks beside me and always has.  Why wouldn't she?  

[MDalby]

On 1/1/2016 at 7:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

I don't think they are officially numbered, but yes, there are 3/5/7 heavens...

Can you give me some more references on this 3/5/7 heavens.  Not sure what you are referencing here.

I understand the different degrees of glory within the kingdoms from the following BH Roberts quote.

 

These are the great divisions of glory in the world to come, but there are subdivisions or degrees.  Of the telestial glory it is written: “And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one, for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world” [D&C 76:98].  From this it is evident that there are different degrees of glory within the celestial and the telestial glories; and though we have no direct authority for the statement, it seems but reasonable to conclude that there are different degrees of glory in the terrestrial world also.  It appears but rational that it should be so, since the degrees of worthiness in men are almost infinite in their variety; and as every man is to be judged according to his works, it will require a corresponding infinity of degrees in glory to mete out to every man that reward of which he is worthy, and that also which his intelligence will enable him to enjoy.
The question of advancement within the great divisions of glory celestial, terrestrial, and telestial; as also the question of advancement from one sphere of glory to another remains to be considered. In the revelation from which we have summarized what has been written here, in respect to the different degrees of glory, it is said that those of the terrestrial glory will be ministered unto by those of the celestial; and those of the telestial will be ministered unto by those of the terrestrial–that is, those of the higher glory minister to those of a lesser glory.  I can conceive of no reason for all this administration of the higher to the lower, unless it be for the purpose of advancing our Father’s children along the lines of eternal progression.  Whether or not in the great future, full of so many possibilities now hidden from us, they of the lesser glories after education and advancement within those spheres may at last emerge from them and make their way to the higher degrees of glory until at last they attain to the highest, is not revealed in the revelations of God, and any statement made on the subject must partake more or less of the nature of conjecture.  But if it be granted that such a thing is possible, they who at the first entered into the celestial glory–having before them the privilege also of eternal progress–have been moving onward, so that the relative distance between them and those who have fought their way up from the lesser glories may be as great when the latter have come into the degrees of celestial glory in which the righteous at first stood, as it was at the commencement.  Thus:  Those whose faith and works are such only as to enable them to inherit a telestial glory, may arrive at last where those whose works in this life were such as to enable them to entrance into the celestial kingdom–they may arrive where these were, but never where they are. 
(B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 1:391-392)

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by MDalby

[VideoGameJunkie]

10 minutes ago, MDalby said:

Can you give me some more references on this 3/5/7 heavens.  Not sure what you are referencing here.

I understand the different degrees of glory within the kingdoms from the following BH Roberts quote.

 

These are the great divisions of glory in the world to come, but there are subdivisions or degrees.  Of the telestial glory it is written: “And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one, for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world” [D&C 76:98].  From this it is evident that there are different degrees of glory within the celestial and the telestial glories; and though we have no direct authority for the statement, it seems but reasonable to conclude that there are different degrees of glory in the terrestrial world also.  It appears but rational that it should be so, since the degrees of worthiness in men are almost infinite in their variety; and as every man is to be judged according to his works, it will require a corresponding infinity of degrees in glory to mete out to every man that reward of which he is worthy, and that also which his intelligence will enable him to enjoy.
The question of advancement within the great divisions of glory celestial, terrestrial, and telestial; as also the question of advancement from one sphere of glory to another remains to be considered. In the revelation from which we have summarized what has been written here, in respect to the different degrees of glory, it is said that those of the terrestrial glory will be ministered unto by those of the celestial; and those of the telestial will be ministered unto by those of the terrestrial–that is, those of the higher glory minister to those of a lesser glory.  I can conceive of no reason for all this administration of the higher to the lower, unless it be for the purpose of advancing our Father’s children along the lines of eternal progression.  Whether or not in the great future, full of so many possibilities now hidden from us, they of the lesser glories after education and advancement within those spheres may at last emerge from them and make their way to the higher degrees of glory until at last they attain to the highest, is not revealed in the revelations of God, and any statement made on the subject must partake more or less of the nature of conjecture.  But if it be granted that such a thing is possible, they who at the first entered into the celestial glory–having before them the privilege also of eternal progress–have been moving onward, so that the relative distance between them and those who have fought their way up from the lesser glories may be as great when the latter have come into the degrees of celestial glory in which the righteous at first stood, as it was at the commencement.  Thus:  Those whose faith and works are such only as to enable them to inherit a telestial glory, may arrive at last where those whose works in this life were such as to enable them to entrance into the celestial kingdom–they may arrive where these were, but never where they are. 
(B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 1:391-392)

 

That kind of sucks then if they can never catch up. I thought we could only never catch up to Heavenly Father and possibly Jesus, but be equal with Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, in the analogy male and female members form the Church that Christ presides over.

But the point remains - the bridegroom ALWAYS presides over the bride, whether we are speaking eternal symbolism (as Christ and the Church) or temple endowment, or sealing ceremony.

It very well may be sexist.  But just as with the lack of female ordination provides evidence for that discrepancy, the lack of females presiding over males also provides evidence.

This is the assumption that I'm challenging.  In history, due to culture and the way that women were viewed as naturally inferior to men, the bridegroom almost always presided over the bride (I say almost because there were a few matriarchal societies back then).  That's not true now though.  And I don't see anything in scripture suggesting that  it has to be that way.  That that is a part of some eternal order of things.

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is the assumption that I'm challenging.  In history, due to culture and the way that women were viewed as naturally inferior to men, the bridegroom almost always presided over the bride (I say almost because there were a few matriarchal societies back then).  That's not true now though.  And I don't see anything in scripture suggesting that  it has to be that way.  That that is a part of some eternal order of things.

I don't see women as inferior to men, just that women as wives have a duty to follow their husbands as their husbands follow their/our Lord as Eve agreed to follow Adam. Think of what women agree to do in the temple endowment sessions, and associated scriptures. 

The stipulation is that women as wives are agreeing to follow their husbands only as their husbands follow their/our Lord, though,  rather than a "do WHATEVER the husband says" mentality, so that when a wife follows her husband it should be the same thing as or equal to following their/our Lord.

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

That kind of sucks then if they can never catch up. I thought we could only never catch up to Heavenly Father and possibly Jesus, but be equal with Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.

I think the more you think about it the more it should become more evident to you why those getting more glory later can't catch up to those who receved more glory sooner. And it shouldn't really bother you either as if it kind of sucks. It's just the result of getting started later rather than sooner.

Adam and Abraham and other righteous men (and women) who died before Christ have already been resurrected and are already doing many great things that those (or most of those, with Moroni and others as exceptions) born after Christ's resurrection haven't done yet.  So when we are eventually resurrected and start doing many great things like they are now doing they will have already been doing many great things before we even got started.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This is the assumption that I'm challenging.  In history, due to culture and the way that women were viewed as naturally inferior to men, the bridegroom almost always presided over the bride (I say almost because there were a few matriarchal societies back then).  That's not true now though.  And I don't see anything in scripture suggesting that  it has to be that way.  That that is a part of some eternal order of things.

But if Christ himself considers the bridegroom to preside over the bride, I think blaming it on "society" is ignoring the source of the principle.  And just as with female ordination, where is the God sanction woman presiding over the man?  Has God EVER given a wife to preside over a husband?

[Ahab]

Now as my response to the title of this thread I'll say that as each man as an Adam is the Lord over the earth (or portion of the Earrh) that is his own property/real estate, each woman as an Eve is the Lady over the same.

Lords and Ladies ruling together. 

That's the way I like it, each with different roles but still working together in an equal partnership. 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, MDalby said:

Can you give me some more references on this 3/5/7 heavens.  Not sure what you are referencing here.

• 1. Telestial
• 2. Terrestrial
• 3. Celestial
• 2 Corinthians 12:2
• Paul ascended into the third heavens and he could understand the THREE PRINCIPLE ROUNDS of Jacobs ladder - the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms, when Paul saw and heard things which were not lawful to utter. TPJS - 304
• And of course D&C 76

 

• 1. Telestial
• 2. Terrestrial
• 3. Celestial 1
• 4. Celestial 2
• 5. Celestial 3
• D&C 131:1 -  In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
• Paul saw the third heavens, and I more. - TPJS 301

 

So just in LDS scripture we have reference to 3 kingdoms and 5 kingdoms.  Joseph also alluded to 7 or more kingdoms.

• I COULD EXPLAIN A HUNDREDFOLD MORE THAN I EVER HAVE of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision were I permitted and were the people ready to receive them - TPJS 304
• “I know one who was caught up to the seventh heaven and saw and heard things not lawful for me to utter” - Joseph Smith as quoted by his wife Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
• DC 130:10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

I think of heaven as a term that refers to what is above the earth/Earth, so I think of the first order of heaven as the sky above the earth/Earth but below the Earth's atmosphere,  the second extending to the outer regions of our solar system (with each planet and moon and sun and asteroid,  etc having their own first order of heaven/sky/region between its earth/ground and atmosphere), the 3rd extending to the outer regions of the Telestial order of heaven, of which the Earth and our solar system and many other solar systems are a part (with each galaxy divided into celestial and terrestrial and telestial regions), the 4th extending to the outer regions of the Terrestrial order, and the 5th to the outer regions of our galaxy. Everything outside of any galaxy is what I think of as outer darkness. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But if Christ himself considers the bridegroom to preside over the bride, I think blaming it on "society" is ignoring the source of the principle.  And just as with female ordination, where is the God sanction woman presiding over the man?  Has God EVER given a wife to preside over a husband?

Christ often used parables made up of the culture of the people He was speaking to though.  That has never meant that the cultural traditions within which the parable plays out are part of the eternal order of heaven.  I'm not sure why we should treat this parable differently.

The bridegroom/bride = Christ/church parable works because of the culture it was presented in.  I don't see any way to separate it from that society.  It wouldn't work as a parable in our society now, for example.  We, in this day, have to go back to Ancient Israelite culture surrounding marriage to even understand it's significance in our own lives. Separated from that culture the parable doesn't teach much.

And besides what is described very briefly in Israelite culture, i'm not sure that we have any other examples of God's dealings between husband and wife, do we?  Perhaps you know of a few and can share them.  I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I don't see women as inferior to men, just that women as wives have a duty to follow their husbands as their husbands follow their/our Lord as Eve agreed to follow Adam. Think of what women agree to do in the temple endowment sessions, and associated scriptures. 

The stipulation is that women as wives are agreeing to follow their husbands only as their husbands follow their/our Lord, though,  rather than a "do WHATEVER the husband says" mentality, so that when a wife follows her husband it should be the same thing as or equal to following their/our Lord.

Yes, i do understand that.

I makes some women uncomfortable though to be taught that they need to behave as if their husband = Christ.  It's hard for some women to understand why they need an intermediary between themselves and Christ and husbands don't.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I guess I don't get the whole thing and why this keeps coming up for women and the men that wave this flag.  My wife is educated and a professional.  However, when we had children she was a mother at home and her focus was on making a home a real home.  She did not return to work until after our children were out of high school.  She just enjoys having something to do during the day.  

Although I was recognized as the head of the home there was never a moment in our lives that I made the decisions unilaterally.  In our marriage we recognized that we each brought different levels of expertise to the home and we focused on each using our strengths to make the home function better.  For example, I am a better cook than my wife so I did most of the cooking.  My wife was more interested in managing our finances so she did.  We both cleaned the home, but she did more than I did.  I took care of the outside of the home until she decided she enjoyed yard work and then she assisted as she chose.  

It seems like there is this bizarre need for equality without ever explaining what equality is.  Further, there is this apparent desire to make the sexes exactly the same and god forbid acknowledging the reality that men and women are different and have different roles.  This ill-thought out push to make women be exactly like men is wrong-headed and never produces....men.  It produces women who don't know how to be a women because they are so confused and it produces men who don't know what the heck they are supposed to do with this being that is a woman who acts like a man or at least tries to and does it poorly.  

The media and academia has been pushing the concept that there is no difference between men and women - that they are equal i.e. the same for decades and we wonder why our society is so fragmented, families destroyed, and children suffer and continue to suffer.  They never explain what "the same" is or they never want to admit that men are not women and women are not men.  

I still believe that genders have roles to play and they have worked well to produce successful families for thousands of years and God is the author of those roles.  At no point has my wife ever walked behind me; she walks beside me and always has.  Why wouldn't she?  

I'm not seeing anyone arguing for men and women being treated the same on this thread but i could have missed it.  Could you point it out so i know what you are responding to?

What I think sometimes happens is that a topic of discussion comes up among church members that deal with gender issues and people don't actually hear what the issue is.  They assume that every issue is, at the heart, about 'making men and women the same' or about 'ordaining women' and they address those topics, never noticing that those topics don't have anything to do with what is actually bothering someone.