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

[rodheadlee]

17 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what's the recipe and pathway to avoiding Heavenly Father's wrath and receiving exaltation?

Luke 17:  33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall ^alose his life shall preserve it.

 

Lose yourself in service to others.

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Luke 17:  33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall ^alose his life shall preserve it.

 

Lose yourself in service to others.

The Pope and Mother Teresa and Tim Tebow have done that and believe in Christ, so why should they worry about getting temple work done then?

Edited January 3, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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

There are many responses to what you bring up.  First, does feminism have a definition or is it so broad that anyone can call themselves a feminist if they simply like women and believe that they should be cared for?  The broader the definition the more impossible it is to paint with a broad brush stroke when making generalizations such as I did in my previous edit.  Overly narrow generalizations then excludes the too many that rightfully should be considered feminists.

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

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

This past week I saw a picture of a recent world political meeting in Europe.  Some feminist, a fellow I think, was all up in arms because because the fact that the picture only included men in attendance was somehow a major shortcoming of civil society.  His opinion was that every meeting must have women serving in fundamental roles in attendance to be valid.  This type of feminism is illogical.  Gender does not qualify one for expertise in any field.  If you have the expertise then you should be qualified to serve.  

The flip side of that philosophy is also understanding that I might be the most qualified fellow in the world and still never be asked or called upon to serve.  Why?  Because of a host of other reasons, but gender is seldom the over-riding, nor should it be, of any decision when it comes to political office.  I digress and admit this is a soapbox of mine.  I will step down.  

[Jeanne]

Okay....this is outside of the church..basic life experience   When my husband passed away..I decided a good year later to get me a new bedroom set.  By then I had a job of 7 months and still used a regular visa and stuff.  I went to RC Willey in SLC to buy my furniture and lo and behold they would not let me get my own RC Willey Card..but get this, I could use my deceased husband's card.  I mean..like he is not going to pay for it right?  Women in and out of the church are have to pinch themselves to see if they exist!  So there it is..basic woman 101.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay....this is outside of the church..basic life experience   When my husband passed away..I decided a good year later to get me a new bedroom set.  By then I had a job of 7 months and still used a regular visa and stuff.  I went to RC Willey in SLC to buy my furniture and lo and behold they would not let me get my own RC Willey Card..but get this, I could use my deceased husband's card.  I mean..like he is not going to pay for it right?  Women in and out of the church are have to pinch themselves to see if they exist!  So there it is..basic woman 101.

No matter how many times I put my number down as the primary number and just list my husband's number for real emergencies, the elementary and junior high school always treats his number as primary. 

Its the weirdest thing. 

[Rain]

On Saturday, January 02, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Bobbieaware said:

 

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Rain
deleted because I was trying to make a post, but wasn't responding to these a second time and can't figure out how to fix it.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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-wife watermelon out of a two inch hole; and then, as if that isn't enough, you complain about how you then have 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.

What a demeaning thing to say.

As my 17yo daughter said, "If that's all it takes then we could call rapists "father"."

I can't imagine how that would come to mind when we are talking about the beautiful roles that have been given to us. Oh, I get that he was attempting to show that women have it hard and he appreciates what they went through, but it puts down both mothers/women and fathers/men and has little to do with parenthood roles, especially for those who have adopted. 

There is so much more to parenthood than pregnancy.  It is a beautiful part for many, but it doesn't come close to filling completely the role of mother and father.  

 

[Bobbieaware]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

What a demeaning thing to say.

As my 17yo daughter said, "If that's all it takes then we could call rapists "father"."

I can't imagine how that would come to mind when we are talking about the beautiful roles that have been given to us. Oh, I get that he was attempting to show that women have it hard and he appreciates what they went through, but it puts down both mothers/women and fathers/men and has little to do with parenthood roles, especially for those who have adopted. 

There is so much more to parenthood than pregnancy.  It is a beautiful part for many, but it doesn't come close to filling completely the role of mother and father.  

 

The divinely ordained role of mother is front-loaded with so many trials, sacrifices and dangers, and with so much physical and emotional pain a father is not called upon to endure. So in order to be just and fair God balanced things out by calling upon men to take upon themselves the responsibility of holding offices in the priesthood so that they too could learn how to live godly lives of unselfish sacrifice. The fact that some women of today's Church cannot appreciate the fact that in their unique and eternally essential role they are equally blessed as the men in all things pertaining to light, life, righteousness and knowledge testifies to the fact that they have allowed themselves to be spiritually blinded by the earthly wisdom of a fallen world that will pass away.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

This past week I saw a picture of a recent world political meeting in Europe.  Some feminist, a fellow I think, was all up in arms because because the fact that the picture only included men in attendance was somehow a major shortcoming of civil society.  His opinion was that every meeting must have women serving in fundamental roles in attendance to be valid.  This type of feminism is illogical.  Gender does not qualify one for expertise in any field.  If you have the expertise then you should be qualified to serve.  

 

That is a major shortcoming. How do you expect to represent half of society in political decisions when they aren't even minimally represented? It is well documented that women and men have different priorities. The world simply can't continue thinking it is appropriate for men to make decisions for women. All that needs to be done to make the point is make men imagine a world where laws were made for them by women only. What this does show is this is a universal problem. The Church is merely a subset. I think one of the better examples is church buildings. They were not designed for women's needs. Men originally designed child changing stations only in the women's restroom. If women designed church buildings there would be cry rooms (we used to have these.) The mother's room would have ample space so chairs wouldn't next to diaper disposal. There would be adequate air circulation. The RS room would be large enough for all the women in large wards...with a cry room. The RS President would have a small office where she could work on confidential matters. Women are generally more concerned with people's welfare so there would be adequate accommodations for handicapped, whether deaf, intellectually challenged, or wheelchairs. You will note that none of this has theological implications but it is something that makes a huge difference that men have obviously not factored in. With only token representation, women aren't going to be able to break through the male dominance. There needs to be equivalent representation.

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The divinely ordained role of mother is front-loaded with so many trials, sacrifices and dangers, and with so much physical and emotional pain a father is not called upon to endure. So in order to be just and fair God balanced things out by calling upon men to take upon themselves the responsibility of holding offices in the priesthood so that they too could learn how to live godly lives of unselfish sacrifice. The fact that some women of today's Church cannot appreciate the fact that in their unique and eternally essential role they are equally blessed as the men in all things pertaining to light, life, righteousness and knowledge testifies to the fact that they have allowed themselves to be spiritually blinded by the earthly wisdom of a fallen world that will pass away.

This is nonsensical. For starters, if all women are given motherhood (which is more a relationship than a "role" which ends) why aren't all men given priesthood? It is these cliches that will pass away. 

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The divinely ordained role of mother is front-loaded with so many trials, sacrifices and dangers, and with so much physical and emotional pain a father is not called upon to endure. So in order to be just and fair God balanced things out by calling upon men to take upon themselves the responsibility of holding offices in the priesthood so that they too could learn how to live godly lives of unselfish sacrifice. The fact that some women of today's Church cannot appreciate the fact that in their unique and eternally essential role they are equally blessed as the men in all things pertaining to light, life, righteousness and knowledge testifies to the fact that they have allowed themselves to be spiritually blinded by the earthly wisdom of a fallen world that will pass away.

This is how my mom use to think and expressed it to me as a young woman, the first half of your post.  At the time it didn't really matter, but I remember as if it was yesterday.  

[Calm]

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Ballard,%20M.%20Russell/BallardMR_TheRoleOfWomenInChurchCouncils.html

"This wise counsel of the President of the Church conveys the spirit of the role of women as they participate in the stake and ward councils of the Church. Stronger testimonies and deeper commitment are needed, and sister leaders can assist the priesthood in finding solutions and in teaching, strengthening, and preparing mothers, young women, and children to have a greater love for and dedication to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.       

Therefore, I would urge the priesthood brethren who preside over ward and stake councils to draw upon the great power, insight, and wisdom that women can bring with them to these council meetings. Our sisters can contribute the power of faith, through which "the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:3). They can bring the power of purity, through which "we may be purified even as [the Lord] is pure" (Moroni 7:48). And they generally possess the power of love, that which the Apostle Paul called charity, the greatest of all godly virtues (see 1 Corinthians 13:13). It is a short-sighted priesthood leader who does not see the value of calling upon the sisters to share the understanding and inspiration they possess."

 

[Calm]

[Maidservant]

I understand the covenants that Adam and Eve initially made to be artifacts of the telestial world they were about to enter.  In fact, an inverse of the relationship artifact(s) of Paradise.

Eve is not presented as being deceived.  She is presented as thinking deeply and making a risky, rewarding choice. The right one, actually.  And then she invites Adam to come with her so that he will not be a lone man.  In other words, she ministers salvation/progression to him.  She has authority.  In the telestial world, she continues to direct Adam (he checks with her, and she gives answers with her eyes).

Adam and Eve pass out of the telestial world and other covenants and progression is made.  How does it end?

It's there, but I hope we can stop thinking with Jewish and Middle Age culture paradigms, so we can see it.

I would say more, but I may have gone too far as to the board rules already.  I've tried to be constrained.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Eve is not presented as being deceived.  She is presented as thinking deeply and making a risky, rewarding choice. The right one, actually. 

Been saying this for ages.  And it's scriptural too if we understand Moses 5:10-12.

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

That is a major shortcoming. How do you expect to represent half of society in political decisions when they aren't even minimally represented? It is well documented that women and men have different priorities. The world simply can't continue thinking it is appropriate for men to make decisions for women. All that needs to be done to make the point is make men imagine a world where laws were made for them by women only. What this does show is this is a universal problem. The Church is merely a subset. I think one of the better examples is church buildings. They were not designed for women's needs. Men originally designed child changing stations only in the women's restroom. If women designed church buildings there would be cry rooms (we used to have these.) The mother's room would have ample space so chairs wouldn't next to diaper disposal. There would be adequate air circulation. The RS room would be large enough for all the women in large wards...with a cry room. The RS President would have a small office where she could work on confidential matters. Women are generally more concerned with people's welfare so there would be adequate accommodations for handicapped, whether deaf, intellectually challenged, or wheelchairs. You will note that none of this has theological implications but it is something that makes a huge difference that men have obviously not factored in. With only token representation, women aren't going to be able to break through the male dominance. There needs to be equivalent representation.

Yeah, I am not buying that only women are benevolent and think of pregnant women or the handicapped.  In fact, none of those things were considered a hundred years ago, three hundred years ago,  or ever in the history of humanity.  You are addressing most of the things that are reflective of a today and a time of plenty where you have enough money to supply the needs of everyone.  It would be great if the HP Group leader and the Elders Quorum President also had small offices for the confidential business they each do, but exactly how large would the building need to be to accommodate all the desires, wants, and wishes of individuals in their callings?

No, I don't think that nor believe that only women, by merit of their gender alone, have a special insight into world problems and their respective solutions.  That is highly sexist thing to say and think - by merit of one's gender they are qualified for high office and leadership positions.  Why do women think by the very merit of their gender they should be put in positions of authority, not because they are qualified, but because of their gender alone?  Gads, let a man think or say that about their gender and the entire world would be up in arms in revolt.

Architects design what society demands.  At times, when funds are of no consequence, they can design buildings of extreme beauty, but the US has forfeited that type of building for the most part in favor of a more utilitarian approach.  Btw, that type of architecture is designed by both male and female architects - I have worked with both.

[rodheadlee]

17 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The Pope and Mother Teresa and Tim Tebow have done that and believe in Christ, so why should they worry about getting temple work done then?

What do you think? What does our Doctrine say about it?

[bluebell]

On January 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Storm Rider said:

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.  

I'm not seeing anyone talking about it being a 'horror' to think of a husband as a lord in his home, nor any wives that are adverse to praying for their husbands (that idea that any wife would be against that seems so incredibly silly i'm not sure where you are getting it from.  Can you share where you got the idea that any wives feel this way?).

And can you share where the idea comes from that the husband being the 'president' and the wife being the 'counselor' because those are the roles that are best suited for each sex?  I'm not sure i've read that in our doctrine before.

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And by the way, do you think Christ is subordinate to Father, or are they equals.  

Yes, I do believe that Christ is always subordinate to the Father.  They have a parent/child relationship so that the child would in some way always be subordinate to the parent makes perfect sense.  

It doesn't makes sense to me that a husband and wife would be commanded to have a parent/child relationship though.  That's dysfunctional.

Quote

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.  

I agree.  I'm not hung up on it, but i do want to understand it better.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not seeing anyone talking about it being a 'horror' to think of a husband as a lord in his home, nor any wives that are adverse to praying for their husbands (that idea that any wife would be against that seems so incredibly silly i'm not sure where you are getting it from.  Can you share where you got the idea that any wives feel this way?).

And can you share where the idea comes from that the husband being the 'president' and the wife being the 'counselor' because those are the roles that are best suited for each sex?  I'm not sure i've read that in our doctrine before.

Maybe he's getting it from my opening post.  I c/p below, part of it.  He may think it's I who is horrified.

"Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands? Do you pray for brother Brigham? Yes, you should always pray for him. But when you pray for him, do you pray also for your own husband, that he may have the inspiration of the Almighty to lead and govern his family as the lord? Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What! My husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of  you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and someone had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant."

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

That is a major shortcoming. How do you expect to represent half of society in political decisions when they aren't even minimally represented? It is well documented that women and men have different priorities. The world simply can't continue thinking it is appropriate for men to make decisions for women. All that needs to be done to make the point is make men imagine a world where laws were made for them by women only. What this does show is this is a universal problem. The Church is merely a subset. I think one of the better examples is church buildings. They were not designed for women's needs. Men originally designed child changing stations only in the women's restroom. If women designed church buildings there would be cry rooms (we used to have these.) The mother's room would have ample space so chairs wouldn't next to diaper disposal. There would be adequate air circulation. The RS room would be large enough for all the women in large wards...with a cry room. The RS President would have a small office where she could work on confidential matters. Women are generally more concerned with people's welfare so there would be adequate accommodations for handicapped, whether deaf, intellectually challenged, or wheelchairs. You will note that none of this has theological implications but it is something that makes a huge difference that men have obviously not factored in. With only token representation, women aren't going to be able to break through the male dominance. There needs to be equivalent representation.

Yes!  

I understand why nursery doesn't start for babies until they are 18 months old and I understand why kids stay with parents in sacrament meeting, but what the heck are we supposed to do with babies who are so disruptive that they won't allow a parent to stay in sacrament or the last two meetings either??  There is no place for them.  

You can't let them run the halls because there are too many open doors for them to wander into, and constantly being redirected makes them scream (which is a distraction even if they aren't in the same room with people trying to listen and learn or feel the spirit because church walls are FAR from sound proof).  You can't take them into any rooms because they are all in use (even the baby cry room is typically only big enough for two women at a time and it needs to be reserved for women trying to nurse).  During the summer you can take them outside but that's not very many months out of 12 where that works.  

Almost every sunday i or my husband ends up spending two hours in the car in the parking lot because there is no where else for us to take our busy toddler who is not old enough for nursery yet.  It's utterly insane. Sometimes i miss being present in sacrament meeting too.  What's the point of even going?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes!  

I understand why nursery doesn't start for babies until they are 18 months old and I understand why kids stay with parents in sacrament meeting, but what the heck are we supposed to do with babies who are so disruptive that they won't allow a parent to stay in sacrament or the last two meetings either??  There is no place for them.  

You can't let them run the halls because there are too many open doors for them to wander into, and constantly being redirected makes them scream (which is a distraction even if they aren't in the same room with people trying to listen and learn or feel the spirit because church walls are FAR from sound proof).  You can't take them into any rooms because they are all in use (even the baby cry room is typically only big enough for two women at a time and it needs to be reserved for women trying to nurse).  During the summer you can take them outside but that's not very many months out of 12 where that works.  

Almost every sunday i or my husband ends up spending two hours in the car in the parking lot because there is no where else for us to take our busy toddler who is not old enough for nursery yet.  It's utterly insane. Sometimes i miss being present in sacrament meeting too.  What's the point of even going?

Oh, for better church designs.  The old rooms that had a speaker and glass enclosures to enable them to see and hear the speaker during Sacrament.  

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I do believe that Christ is always subordinate to the Father.  They have a parent/child relationship so that the child would in some way always be subordinate to the parent makes perfect sense.  

It doesn't makes sense to me that a husband and wife would be commanded to have a parent/child relationship though.  That's dysfunctional.

I agree.  I'm not hung up on it, but i do want to understand it better.

Well, I wasn't trying to suggest a parent/child relationship between husband and wife, just that the relationship between Father and Son has more of the flavor of a first among equals than anything else. Which is how I believe the ideal husband/wife relationship shakes out. Ultimately the minds and wills of both become so close that they are for all intents and purposes one.

I definitely want to understand it better.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, for better church designs.  The old rooms that had a speaker and glass enclosures to enable them to see and hear the speaker during Sacrament.  

 

I would love to understand why they got away from that design.  It had to have been the decision of someone who never had to take care of a toddler during church ever.

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Now...let's put those good women on the front row!