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

[thesometimesaint]

D&C 121: 41

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Especially when the reasoning for this is tied back to the Fall, but does not appear to be removed postmortality while everything else that is a result of the Fall is, which makes no sense because the Atonement removes all curses and limitations of the fallen mortal experience...save this one.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I encourage all women who are troubled by gender roles in the church and eternity to go to the temple and pray about them in the Celestial Room and ask Heavenly Father for an answer of comfort and understanding.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

D&C 121: 41

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

While true, this is a "how" answer, not a "why" and thus has nothing to do with explaining why a husband is in the position of presiding power in the family while the wife is not, even if he wisely uses all of the above to function in that position.

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

It was resused speaking to Joseph Smith's day.  I am not prepared to assume it was just being used as poetic Biblical language and accidentally perpetuated old world sexist thinking.

God isn't that careless in the words he uses.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

I did finish reading the second "The Two Trees" presentation which Calm linked for me.

She noted the obvious physical differences and how these physical body parts are a blessing.  Then she highlights equality:

Let me quote here from Elder L. Tom Perry in 2004: “”There is not a president and vice president in a family. We have co-presidents working together eternally for the good of their family . . . They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.”

What an incredible vision! Especially for a Christian religion, many of which believe in some type of doctrine of submission of wives to husbands. That is not what the LDS believe.

Now think of all the many things that men and women are equal in. They can be equal in blessings, equal partners, equal in power, equal in intelligence, equal in wisdom, equal in dignity, equal in respect, equal in giving counsel, equal in giving consent, equal in agency, equal in value, equal in potential, equal in fullness when exalted, equal in virtue, equal in spirituality and spiritual gifts, equal in temporal things at least in Zion, and equal heirs with Christ. This is a radical, revolutionary assertion of the equality of men and women before the Lord and before each other!

She then goes into great detail with the Garden of Eden doctrine, first addressing the issue of "helpmeet".

Now our General Authorities have told us that that perspective is absolutely wrong, and that indeed when the term “helpmeet” is used, as I am sure you are well familiar, that “meet” actually means “equal in power to save.” So let’s read here from Elder Earl C. Tingey: “You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to us. We walk side by side with a helpmeet, not one before or behind the other. A helpmeet results in an absolute equal partnership between a husband and a wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other

Then presenting the concept of the title of the talk

Let me offer a suggestion here. Could it be that Eve was created second to demonstrate Adam’s helplessness before the First Tree? Could it be—two people, two trees—that Eve was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree?

Then detailing the pre-ordained nature of woman as mothers and Eve's need to cause the veil to be placed by partaking of the first tree, thus opening the door to the Plan of Happiness.  The main idea of the talk's title relating to the two fruits of the two trees (1st, fruit to bring the veil of mortality, 2nd, physical fruit of the woman, mortal children).

I've been known to describe this true aspect of the Garden doctrine in simple, but true (to me) male chauvinist terms:  Honey get off that couch and go cut the lawn.  Adam, having done this possibly many times before for his other wives, is in no hurry to leave the comfort of that garden for what he knows will follow.  The enthusiasm and anxiety of a mother to continue the progression of her spiritual children into obtaining their physical bodies is a force to be reckoned with. 

Valerie then continues to develop the concept of the Patriarchal Order starting with this:

Women, do we hearken to our husbands? Well, of course we do. If my husband said to me before we were married, “Honey, I want to be married in the temple, and I don’t want to be married anywhere else.” I would say, “You betcha!” If after we were married and had children, he said, “Honey, I want to hold family home evening, and I want to hold family prayer, and I want to make sure they get baptized when they are eight.” I would say, “You bet! I’m going to accept and receive that fruit of the Second Tree from you.” If my husband said, “Honey, would you go get me the remote, it’s in the other room,” or “Tomorrow we’re moving to Iowa, did I tell you?” It is not my spiritual obligation to hearken outside of loving my husband and receiving from him the gift of the fruit of the Second Tree.

And then again returning to an emphasis on equality

 

So what we mean by the patriarchal order is the order of family government as found in heaven based on the equal partnership of men and women. President James E. Faust said: “Every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals in their distinctive parental roles"

Notice the drumbeat, again, of equality.[/quote]

She shares how a good husband shares with a blending of old 1950's traditional mortal parental roles, but does not touch upon any of the spiritual distinctive eternal roles to which JLHPROF and others have referred to when it comes to the likes of exactly who is it that receives us through the veil of resurrection and mortal life? And why is that?

She presents us here with a limited and non-doctrinal understanding of what ETB taught about the Patriarchal Priesthood (the Holy Order), mixing it with concepts of our temporary ecclesiastical priesthoods and how they work in mortal live.  The "distinctive parental roles" of the Holy Order have not been addressed in the talk.

She sums up these thoughts with:

But that bedrock must be there. That means that gender equality is not some “politically correct” ideal to the Latter-day Saints; it is not some maraschino cherry placed last atop a Zion sundae. No, relationships of gender equality are the bricks of Zion, without which you cannot build Zion, because gender equality is how Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father live.

She continues with an interesting speculation:

We know that for the endowment, for those of use en route to the Second Tree, the daughters of God hearken to the sons of God in their apprenticeship to Heavenly Father. I think it’s quite possible that en route to the First Tree there was also a covenanting, where the sons of God covenanted to hearken to the daughters of God in their apprenticeship to Heavenly Mother, and that Adam’s partaking of the fruit from the hand of his wife, Eve, was his fulfillment of that covenant.

Well, whatever makes you feel good in getting Adam off that couch I suppose.  She then addresses the world's observations of a male only patriarchal Church with the following rebuttal:

What our General Authorities preach is that the Church is supposed to be a gift to the family, the gift given by the sons of God, and that there is another gift to the family, and that gift is given by the daughters of God. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, “There might be wards and stakes in heaven—I don’t know anything about them—or there may well be some other organization that we don’t know much about. What we do

know will exist in heaven is families. And most of what has been revealed about our afterlife, our eternal life, our celestial life, focuses on family organization[/quote]

Which simply brings us full circle to the whole concept of the Holy Order (which is Adam God based), once again highlighting the woman's eternal role of being the second tree/fruit.

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

Now as to bluebell quote above:

I don't know if you agree with Calm's assessment of the above liked talk as being a good representation of a pro feminist stand in/for the Church.  Your quote to which I'm responding seems to reflect that you disagree with Valarie's consistent declarations of equality is not what is important.

What is it that you view as important in these realms of distinctive parental roles, with an emphases on the eternal roles more so than these temporal roles?

And Calm ... I hope my granddaughters value is more than just being the second tree.

Edited January 2, 2016 by salgare
what a nightmare this edit software is

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

I understand the reason to be because Adam was more inclined to obey our Father when Eve was deceived by Satan and Adam wasn't, wirh Adam eating the fruit only because he didn't want to be separated from Eve after she ate the fruit that our Father had forbidden them both to eat.

She was then asked if she would comply with her husband's will on things that our Father and Lord commanded since Adam had shown, as I see it, he was less likely to be deceived and not do what our Father forbid them to do.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It was resused speaking to Joseph Smith's day.  I am not prepared to assume it was just being used as poetic Biblical language and accidentally perpetuated old world sexist thinking.

God isn't that careless in the words he uses.

So were language surrounding olives.  Do any of us believe that growing olives is a part of some eternal order, or that those ways mentioned are the only approved ways of doing so?

Maybe He's trying to perpetuate old world farming techniques. 😉

 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I understand the reason to be because Adam was more inclined to obey our Father when Eve was deceived by Satan and Adam wasn't, wirh Adam eating the fruit only because he didn't want to be separated from Eve after she ate the fruit that our Father had forbidden them both to eat.

She was then asked if she would comply with her husband's will on things that our Father and Lord commanded since Adam had shown, as I see it, he was less likely to be deceived and not do what our Father forbid them to do.

 

The consequences of the fall end when our mortality ends because of the Atonement of Christ. 

Why is that true for men, but not for women? Why are all women punished for Eve's transgression of eating the fruit first, and why does our punishment extend into eternity when Adam's doesn't?

[salgare]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The consequences of the fall end when our mortality ends because of the Atonement of Christ. 

Why is that true for men, but not for women? Why are all women punished for Eve's transgression of eating the fruit first, and why does our punishment extend into eternity when Adam's doesn't?

Adam because thou has transgressed ... sweat of brow, noxious weeds ... none the less the woman shall be allowed to still have kids ... something to this effect.

JFS, Doctrines of Salvation noted that men are saved by their faith and works in mortality and that woman are saved by childbirth.  The Temple initiation reflects this very clearly. 

As per the Two Trees talk, one self proclaimed feminist is declaring this childbirth (2nd fruit) concept being exactly what she finds most appealing.  Are you suggesting here that this is a continued punishment to you as a woman?

Edited January 2, 2016 by salgare

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

Adam because thou has transgressed ... sweat of brow, noxious weeds ... none the less the woman shall be allowed to still have kids ... something to this effect.

JFS, Doctrines of Salvation noted that men are saved by their faith and works in mortality and that woman are saved by childbirth.  The Temple initiation reflects this very clearly. 

As per the Two Trees talk, one self proclaimed feminist is declaring this childbirth (2nd fruit) concept being exactly what she finds most appealing.  Are you suggesting here that this is a continued punishment to you as a woman?

You'll notice that my point has nothing to do with childbirth. 

So no, that's not what I'm suggesting. 

[salgare]

Then what is it you are saying is/was your punishment for Eve's transgression of which does not end after mortality?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Pretty sure they only have to behave like their husband is Christ if he acts like Christ. This law is seldom applied for that reason.

[bluebell]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure they only have to behave like their husband is Christ if he acts like Christ. This law is seldom applied for that reason.

😊

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, salgare said:

Then what is it you are saying is/was your punishment for Eve's transgression of which does not end after mortality?

Having a husband be the intermediary between a wife and Christ. 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, salgare said:

Then what is it you are saying is/was your punishment for Eve's transgression of which does not end after mortality?

Both Adam and Eve were cursed and both of those curses will be removed.

[salgare]

And yet that is the doctrine right?  Yet you call it a punishment? It's back to that question, a hard one ... Who is it on the other side of the veil between mortality and resurrection?  Hint its not Jesus

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by salgare

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, salgare said:

And yet that is the doctrine right?  Yet you call it a punishment? It's back to that question, a hard one ... Who is it on the other side of the veil between mortality and resurrection?  Hint its not Jesus

Our fundamental beliefs on the gospel of Jesus Christ and the LDS church are too different and contradictory for your interpretation on things to help me.

But I appreciate you trying.  😊

 

[salgare]

My concerns could be quieted if I saw signs of changes to teachings (indoctrinations) that reflected an authorized doctrine which would leave little difference between male/female fundamental beliefs.

FWIW, any presentation of my interpretation of Mormon Doctrine I present on this site I do believe to be accurate.  I'm wide open to discussion on it's accuracy.  In cases like the actual culture, teachings, doctrine and indoctrination pertaining to woman in the Church I find them very destructive to/for women.

As offensive as it may be, I believe woman need to come up with their own fundamental beliefs/interpretations of these doctrines to deal with their own consciences telling them the official doctrine just can not be right.  For the women who's environments have left them in a good place great ... for rolling the dice on indoctrinating innocent children into these male/female role models from birth and hoping they come out with healthy perspectives is not a gamble I'd like to see my grand children put to.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, salgare said:

My concerns could be quieted if I saw signs of changes to teachings (indoctrinations) that reflected an authorized doctrine which would leave little difference between male/female fundamental beliefs.

FWIW, any presentation of my interpretation of Mormon Doctrine I present on this site I do believe to be accurate.  I'm wide open to discussion on it's accuracy.  In cases like the actual culture, teachings, doctrine and indoctrination pertaining to woman in the Church I find them very destructive to/for women.

As offensive as it may be, I believe woman need to come up with their own fundamental beliefs/interpretations of these doctrines to deal with their own consciences telling them the official doctrine just can not be right.  For the women who's environments have left them in a good place great ... for rolling the dice on indoctrinating innocent children into these male/female role models from birth and hoping they come out with healthy perspectives is not a gamble I'd like to see my grand children put to.

Just want to clarify that my questions in this thread don't represent my conscience telling me the doctrine can't be right. 

 

[salgare]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

The system that I am speaking of is completely supported in the Bible, so unless you are also trying to get your family out of Christianity altogether, your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I look at that mischievous hint in that blue tinted face which brings a big smile to my face and say ... there is a good woman.  No fair it biases me to upvote you.

In a close review of your posts in this thread, I realize I avoided responding to this one.  I avoided it as I did not want to derail into generic Christianity. 

In context of our last few posts I'm interested in more detail of this "system".  I don't see this given any detail in your posts to this point.  How are you resolving what I'm seeing as your objections to orthodox Mormon doctrine with this system spoken of?

Edited January 3, 2016 by salgare

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

My comments addressed the horror of think of a husband as a lord in his home and the real horror is that a wife would actually have to pray for his success as a husband and father.  I was not addressing ordaining women or anything else.  If one is against the term, that it infers too much focus on the man, then....my comments specifically addressed this.  It is possible that the lens of perception you addressed was your own.  

It is evident that using language, such a lord, infers a degree of superiority, but I don't agree that is what is meant in this context.  I do think that a man, husband, and father should be the head of the house, but that does not mean a woman is walking behind him or is inferior.  Roles does not invalidate equality, it addresses the roles that are best suited for men and women in the home.  

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The consequences of the fall end when our mortality ends because of the Atonement of Christ. 

Why is that true for men, but not for women? Why are all women punished for Eve's transgression of eating the fruit first, and why does our punishment extend into eternity when Adam's doesn't?

Women are not forced to agree to follow their husbands as their husbands follow Christ.  And many don't agree to do that anyway. 

And even when they do agree to do that I do not consider it to be punishment.  They're following Christ as well as their husbands who should be following him anyway.

[Calm]

No, they have the choice of not having their husband eternally as well.

[salgare]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, they have the choice of not having their husband eternally as well.

You have children and grandchildren right Calm?

They are going with him, right?