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

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

It seems I replied without understanding your statement.  I apologize for that.  I assume that statement was in response to Ahab's post above it which has been included here.

Please elaborate on what you did mean.

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Cfr this is church doctrine.

I would have to reveal Temple content to do so.

[salgare]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, you are wrong.  What was there was the same doctrine I was raised with.  

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/12/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

If you truly believe that a parental sealing means eternal custody rights, you mightwant to start there for reexamining doctrine.

Also note in your link, the caveat I referred to before about the age old, it will all be worked out after we die:

"If you keep your covenants, your relationships in the next life will be fair and right. "

[RevTestament]

43 minutes ago, salgare said:

I'm not clear on this path stuff either.

MercyNGrace sent me a talk a long time ago.  I can't find it now, but it dealt  with the concept of Grace and Works and Salvation verses Exaltation.

In a horribly lacking nutshell, it explained how grace gave all salvation, but from their it is required to move beyond this mark and by works secure/gain our exaltation.

Is this even close JLH and Rev to this path?

 

Speaking for myself, yes it is close. But scriptures also say all will be judged according to their works.

Christ came to show the way to the holiest of all. There is no way to the Father except by Him.

While everyone who believes on Him can receive His grace and be saved, this is a different concept. I refer to it as being analagous to getting to 1st base in a baseball game. Yes, the coach is happy with us, but we did not score a home run. Modern Christian sects mostly teach about getting to 1st base, but fail to do even that because they can't really offer a valid baptism.

Edited January 3, 2016 by RevTestament

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, salgare said:

I would have to reveal Temple content to do so.

I have been to the temple.

 

Your interpretation is not doctrine.

[salgare]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have been to the temple. Your interpretation is not doctrine.

The Two Trees

2010 CONFERENCE

Valerie Hudson Cassler

I'll be glad to leave this with the observation that the Femnist Mormon you linked for me is obviously sensitive to the mortal/civil aspect of this concept.

I assume her middle name is her maiden name.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Speaking for myself, yes it is close. But scriptures also say all will be judged according to their works.

Christ came to show the way to the holiest of all. There is no way to the Father except by Him.

While everyone who believes on Him can receive His grace and be saved, this is a different concept. I refer to it as being analagous to getting to 1st base in a baseball game. Yes, the coach is happy with us, but we did not score a home run. Modern Christian sects mostly teach about getting to 1st base, but fail to do even that because they can't really offer a valid baptism.

I agree but how do we get from 1st base to home in the LDS church?

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I agree but how do we get from 1st base to home in the LDS church?

By following the teachings of Christ. There is enough to do so. I believe that does not necessarily conform to subsequent teachings - even those of Joseph Smith. If you want a more particular answer feel free to PM me.

[mikegriffith1]

And you are his queen on earth. A man who loves and honors his wife "worships the ground she walks on" (figuratively speaking, of course). It's a mutual relationship. You can't get there without him, and he can't get there without you. "Neither is man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11). If he proves unworthy, he will be the one left out of the celestial kingdom.

When we judge spiritual things by worldly standards, they can seem odd. When we judge spiritual things by gospel standards, they make perfect sense.

Edited January 3, 2016 by mikegriffith1

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said:

And you are his queen on earth. A man who loves and honors his wife "worships the ground she walks on" (figuratively speaking, of course). It's a mutual relationship. You can't get there without him, and he can't get there without you. "Neither is man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11). If he proves unworthy, he will be the one left out of the celestial kingdom.

When we judge spiritual things by worldly standards, they can seem odd. When we judge spiritual things by gospel standards, they make perfect sense.

Thanks for the comment; you stated something I should have also said in my comments.  It almost seems like some individuals, both men and women, want no part of another person.  They are whole all by themselves.  There is not a concept in their thinking that indicates that none of us is whole without being united to our spouse.  We believe that all who are exalted will be united with a spouse through the work accomplished during the Millennium.  This teaching of oneness existing only with our spouse is abhorrent to feminists who despise the mere thought of needing men.  They never realize that man is just as dependent as they are in the equation.  It is a failing of the entire feminist philosophy that is built upon the individual as being whole all by themselves.  

[Stargazer]

On 1/1/2016 at 1:54 PM, bluebell said:

It could be.  But I struggle with the idea that sexism is part of the eternal order.  Because claiming that men reign for no other reason than that they are male is sexist.  If it's true, it's still sexist.

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. 

It's not subordination.  It's division of responsibilities.

Men are not exalted alone, and neither are women.  It's together or nothing.  Because both male and female essences are required for the work to be done.

We are not going to achieve the kind of equality between sexes in this life that will exist in the next.  And by the way, do you think Christ is subordinate to Father, or are they equals.  True, Father is the head, but together with the Holy Spirit they are ONE.  If you can envision this, then you can envision the relationship between yourself and your husband when you are exalted.

Don't get hung up on the inadequate comparisons we have to suffer through in this life.  Just as Eternal LIfe is so far above mortal life it is hardly worth comparing, the Eternal relationship between husband and wife is unimaginably greater than the mortal relationship between them.  

[Tacenda]

My purpose is to show that the scriptures gave men license to treat women different then men, in a bad way. If we only believe the Bible to be correct as far as translated correctly or prophets to be fallible, why not on this too?  Especially where women are the most abused by this system of belief.   In my last comment I show how I'm treated.  That isn't a once in a great while treatment,  it's ongoing. I don't see the lack of respect in my non PH holder brothers in law.  But do see it in alot of PH holders.  Even one bishop I had treated his wife that way.  Like we're infants.    

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just a tidbit, on the treatment of women by PH holders.  It's the little things...like tonight I got grief for wanting to go to a wedding reception of a girl I babysat when she was a child.  So right before going in while still in the  vehicle, I was writing on the card, struggling because I was being pressured to hurry, then before you know it the passenger door is opened and the freezing air comes in, talk about insensitive or being treated as a child or lorded over.  Maybe that's not the definition of lording over, but you get the idea.  Because I wasn't moving fast enough, my significant other forces the issue by opening the door to the cold to hurry me.  Basically not much respect.

You can't be serious. What you've said here is absurd. So when an unfortunate LDS woman finds herself married to an insensitive lunk who has no sense nor insight into what it means to treat his wife like a heavenly queen, thick-headedly ignoring all he has ever been taught in Church settings about how a husband should treat his eternal companion, such callous and ungentlemanly behavior is supposed to somehow stand in condemnation of a Church that has consistently and most emphatically taught him to do otherwise?

 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 This teaching of oneness existing only with our spouse is abhorrent to feminists who despise the mere thought of needing men.  They never realize that man is just as dependent as they are in the equation.  It is a failing of the entire feminist philosophy that is built upon the individual as being whole all by themselves.  

As a feminist this is not at all what I believe or represents the "entire" philosophy. I'm not saying there aren't those that may, but you cannot say that's entirely what all feminist beliefs entail, when I (and several other feminists I know) don't have a problem with real partners and interdependence in a relationship (or oneness, in a religious vernacular). The problem with being "dependent on a man" is with social structures that maintain a more one-sided and unnatural dependence. That i have a serious problem with. 

 

With luv, 

bd

Edited January 3, 2016 by BlueDreams

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

You can't be serious. What you've said here is absurd. So when an unfortunate LDS woman finds herself married to an insensitive lunk who has no sense nor insight into what it means to treat his wife like a heavenly queen, thick-headedly ignoring all he has ever been taught in Church settings about how a husband should treat his eternal companion, such callous and ungentlemanly behavior is supposed to somehow stand in condemnation of a Church that has consistently and most emphatically taught him to do otherwise?

 

Deleted for bad taste.

Edited January 3, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Bobbieaware]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Deleted for bad taste.

Give us a hint... 😉

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Someone has to preside. In the absence of father the mother must preside over her family. Using the Priesthood to preside isn't a power play. It can't be used that way. Though unfortunately some men do try. I've always looked as my wife as my co-equal co-partner. Unless we agree with a decision on a matter then no decision is made on that matter.

[Rain]

On Saturday, January 02, 2016 at 7:04 PM, 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.

Here is the problem. Priesthood and motherhood are not equal and complimentary roles. Motherhood and fatherhood are. Priesthood and ___________ are. And motherhood/_________ and priesthood/fatherhood are.

I have the blanks because there is nothing used as a title of what those roles are unless you use priestesshood and nobody can come to an agreement of what that would mean or for that matter what it means to have that role.

I have no doubt that ___________ exists. I feel it so strongly. I believe I am fulfilling responsibilities from it, but couldn't tell you what they are. Maybe that's because we need more light on the matter. Maybe it's because they vary from woman to woman.  I don't know. 

But by saying priesthood is equal to motherhood you either ignore or cut out the fatherhood part of it or ignore or cut out the ______________ of it. 

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just a tidbit, on the treatment of women by PH holders.  It's the little things...like tonight I got grief for wanting to go to a wedding reception of a girl I babysat when she was a child.  So right before going in while still in the  vehicle, I was writing on the card, struggling because I was being pressured to hurry, then before you know it the passenger door is opened and the freezing air comes in, talk about insensitive or being treated as a child or lorded over.  Maybe that's not the definition of lording over, but you get the idea.  Because I wasn't moving fast enough, my significant other forces the issue by opening the door to the cold to hurry me.  Basically not much respect.

I'm really sorry you deal with this. I can't imagine how frustrating or hurtful it is for you. I have known other men like that. But I have known them as priesthood and non  priesthood holders and have known other priesthood and non priesthood holders who would never act that way. Someone who acts that way either doesn't understand or chooses against how it should be.

I hope the best for you. I talked this morning  with a friend whose husband was like that. The last time I saw her was more than 10 years ago. Things have very much changed for her and him since then and are so much better. I hope the same for you.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Rain
typos

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My purpose is to show that the scriptures gave men license to treat women different then men, in a bad way. If we only believe the Bible to be correct as far as translated correctly or prophets to be fallible, why not on this too?  Especially where women are the most abused by this system of belief.   In my last comment I show how I'm treated.  That isn't a once in a great while treatment,  it's ongoing. I don't see the lack of respect in my non PH holder brothers in law.  But do see it in alot of PH holders.  Even one bishop I had treated his wife that way.  Like we're infants.    

Undoubtedly there are jerks everywhere, but my experience of PH holders is quite different. And  I was told by a woman who was a secretary for the department my husband worked in that she and her fellow female staff workers had voted my husband, the only PH among the faculty, as the boss who treated them the best, with respect as well as like equal human beings...he wasn't their boss (though of course he was) but their friend.  This included even a number of female faculty workers.  Expectations and independence has always been expected from me more from LDS employers and associates than nonLDS, many of whom expected me to simply follow their checklist with no questions ask, no suggestions of how to improve it etc.  I have known many good men, in and out of the Church.  

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Someone has to preside. 

So why not women?

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

Here is the problem. Priesthood and motherhood are not equal and complimentary roles. Motherhood and fatherhood are. Priesthood and ___________ are. And morherhood/_________ and priesthood/fatherhood are.

I have the blanks because there is nothing used as a title of what those roles are unless you use priestesshood and nobody can come to an agreement of what that would mean or for that matter what it means to have that role.

I have no doubt that ___________ exists. I feel it so strongly. I believe I am fulfilling responsibilities from it, but couldn't tell you what they are. Maybe that's because we need more light on the matter. Maybe it's because they vary from woman to woman.  I don't know. 

But by saying priesthood is equal to motherhood you either ignore or cut out the fatherhood part of it or ignore or cut out the ______________ of it. 

I'm really sorry you deal with this. I can't imagine how frustrating or hurtful it is for you. I have known other men like that. But I have known them as priesthood and non  priesthood holders and have know other priesthood and non priesthood holders who would never act that way. Someone who acts that way either doesn't understand or chooses against how it should be.

I hope the best for you. I talked this morning  with a friend whose husband was like that. The last time I saw her was more than 10 years ago. This have very much changed for her and him since then and are so much better. I hope the same for you.

Your post reminds me of a joke my father used to be fond of telling. He'd say, "You women complain and act as if it"s such a BIG DEAL that you have to carry a growing child in your womb for over nine months; and then you complain about how after that nine month period how you are somehow expected to deliver that baby in a manner similar to trying to eject a foot-wide watermelon out of a two inch hole; and then, as if that isn't enough, you complain about how you then have to pass through another long period of time dealing with the untold miseries of postpartum depressio. [and then he would say] Well did you ungrateful women ever once stop to think about the five minutes of hard work the husband has to perform in order to make that pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum depression possible?"

The moral? In several important respects, motherhood and fatherhood aren't even close.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Ahab]

41 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In several important respects, motherhood and fatherhood aren't even close.

Likewise in several respects manhood and womanhood aren't even close. But know that some have sympathy and compassion for the other. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Likewise in several respects manhood and womanhood aren't even close. But know that some have sympathy and compassion for the other. 

So true...

[Tacenda]

I'm not perfect either, and my husband is good in every other way.  

Bobbieaware, that is hilarious about the male's contribution to the childbirth.  

I'm glad for you Calm, that your husband is so respectful to women.  I shouldn't lump all PH holders together.  Just worried it's a mentality thing.

Also, thanks Rain, glad your friend is better than ever!

Good to see you posting again, TSS.

[salgare]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad for you Calm, that your husband is so respectful to women.  I shouldn't lump all PH holders together.  Just worried it's a mentality thing.

yes, an indoctrination thing, that based on individuals environment mixed with personality leave it a mentality thing.  Some turn out fine, others not so much.