Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 1/10/2017 at 2:49 PM, Buckeye said:

........................................................

Likewise, allowing women to gain higher education, serve missions, baptize their children, serve as bishops, etc. is laudable because those things are good for women to do. The goal isn't to make women into men anymore than it is to make boys into men. The goal is to make us all into Christ. And there is only one path there from all people, regardless of gender. Gender is not eternal. Gender roles only serve to damn. Its time to let all people seek after all things that are virtuous, lovely, or of good report and stop damning them because of traditional barriers on what is a proper role. 

You're kidding, of course.  Right?!  :huh:

Link to comment
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Buckeye said:

The goal isn't to make women into men anymore than it is to make boys into men. The goal is to make us all into Christ.

Last I checked Christ was male.  You know, SON of God, BrideGROOM and all that.

Quote

 And there is only one path there from all people, regardless of gender. Gender is not eternal. Gender roles only serve to damn. Its time to let all people seek after all things that are virtuous, lovely, or of good report and stop damning them because of traditional barriers on what is a proper role.

What utter nonsense.
And without a shred of scriptural evidence to back it up.

Link to comment
Just now, stemelbow said:

Women should not have a goal to be Chirstlike?  You sure about that, Prof?

Not what I said.  And you know it.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Not what I said.  And you know it.

I do know, I don't know what you're saying.  But, true, I doubted you meant to suggest that women should not have a goal to be Christ-like.  I seek clarification with questions, even if those questions have, perhaps obvious answers. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do know, I don't know what you're saying.  But, true, I doubted you meant to suggest that women should not have a goal to be Christ-like.  I seek clarification with questions, even if those questions have, perhaps obvious answers.

Of course women should have the same attributes and character traits as Christ.  Some have even noted the female aspect of Christ (no expert on the gnostics but something about the Sophia).

However, we are talking priesthood roles here.  The idea that gender is meaningless in priesthood roles doesn't hold water.  Christ is a priesthood office.  Joseph Smith referred to it as the spirit of Messiah.  There is a reason why God didn't send his only begotten firstborn daughter.  There is a reason Abraham didn't seek after the blessings of the Mothers from Melchizedek.
Ignoring gender roles, or pretending that having Christ as a character role model for both genders is sufficient for progression, is not correct doctrine.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course women should have the same attributes and character traits as Christ.  Some have even noted the female aspect of Christ (no expert on the gnostics but something about the Sophia).

However, we are talking priesthood roles here.  The idea that gender is meaningless in priesthood roles doesn't hold water.  Christ is a priesthood office.  Joseph Smith referred to it as the spirit of Messiah.  There is a reason why God didn't send his only begotten firstborn daughter.  There is a reason Abraham didn't seek after the blessings of the Mothers from Melchizedek.
Ignoring gender roles, or pretending that having Christ as a character role model for both genders is sufficient for progression, is not correct doctrine.

Well I'm still confused by what you're trying to say (bold added to point out the focal point of confusion).  But, I'll happily leave you to get back to your conversation.  My guess I'd be confused for another 30 posts trying to explain it to me. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that he was trying to be sarcastic, but am not sure.

Pretty sure he isn't, through the years of reading his posts, this is how he has felt, at least that's how I've read him. Of course as I read his post again and take it in, I think the belief that gender roles are not eternal, may be where you thought he wasn't serious.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course women should have the same attributes and character traits as Christ.  Some have even noted the female aspect of Christ (no expert on the gnostics but something about the Sophia).

However, we are talking priesthood roles here.  The idea that gender is meaningless in priesthood roles doesn't hold water.  Christ is a priesthood office.  Joseph Smith referred to it as the spirit of Messiah.  There is a reason why God didn't send his only begotten firstborn daughter.  There is a reason Abraham didn't seek after the blessings of the Mothers from Melchizedek.
Ignoring gender roles, or pretending that having Christ as a character role model for both genders is sufficient for progression, is not correct doctrine.

Not to be picky here but "the Son" is a priesthood office, and is sealed by an oath. Christ means simply "anointed." It is an adjective really, so we see Christ Jesus, which means the anointed Yeshua. The spirit of the Messiah, is the spirit of the anointed one, and is not really referring to an office...

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not to be picky here but "the Son" is a priesthood office, and is sealed by an oath. Christ means simply "anointed." It is an adjective really, so we see Christ Jesus, which means the anointed Yeshua. The spirit of the Messiah, is the spirit of the anointed one, and is not really referring to an office...

Agreed.  But really didn't want to head down that particular rabbit trail.

As for whether "the spirit of the Messiah" has reference to priesthood, Joseph Smith's discourse equates these spirits with orders of priesthood.
Elias, Elijah, and Messiah.  Referring both to "spirits" AND priesthood orders.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You're kidding, of course.  Right?!  :huh:

What Buckeye says seems to be pure sense..in simple truth.  There is no gender in goodness.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 There is no gender in goodness.

That is 100% true.

But goodness is just one aspect of Christ.

Link to comment
On 1/10/2017 at 2:49 PM, Buckeye said:

The goal is to make us all into Christ. And there is only one path there from all people, regardless of gender. Gender is not eternal.

I am posting here because I am probably one of the few LDS who may agree with this statement - so to just give you a little moral support. However, in the Celestial kingdom women will remain women.

Quote

Gender roles only serve to damn. Its time to let all people seek after all things that are virtuous, lovely, or of good report and stop damning them because of traditional barriers on what is a proper role. 

This is really a silly argument. Clearly women should not feel damned in their role as child bearers. And to try to pretend this is not a role given by God, I believe is damaging to society, and has damaged ours. Our society has become very dysfunctional with the women's lib stuff. I am not saying women should not be paid equally, and not be respected equally in the marital relationship, but the unfortunate consequence of the movement is that women are portrayed as just as violent and just as capable of beating up one another as men are.... that is where it has gotten us. I don't believe that is "virtuous, lovely, or of good report" or is a "proper role."  And if you want to argue with me just watch one episode of Marvel's Agents of SHIELD. It's all over modern movies, etc. So rather than men lifting themselves to nobler pursuits, women are being portrayed as base as "men." Guess it goes both ways....

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

What Buckeye says seems to be pure sense..in simple truth.  There is no gender in goodness.

No gender in goodness is all well and good, Jeanne, but that is not the same as saying that gender is not eternal.  Of course, in Islam God is genderless -- he does not beget and is not begotten.  However, Muslims believe in a Paradise (jannah) in which martyred men are privileged with 72 virgins or houris (Qur'an as understood through the Hadith).  Thus, gender does seem to be eternal for Muslims.

For Mormons, there is no question but that gender is eternal and that, in the Celestial Kingdom, it has permanent priestly and reproductive power.  Part of what it means to be a god is to be permanently united with a member of the opposite sex.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For Mormons, there is no question but that gender is eternal and that, in the Celestial Kingdom, it has permanent priestly and reproductive power.  Part of what it means to be a god is to be permanently united with a member of the opposite sex.

Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

D&C 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

 

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

D&C 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Yes, and Joseph F. Smith said:

Quote

Some of you will understand when I tell you that some of these good women who have passed beyond have actually been anointed queens and priestesses unto God and unto their husbands, to continue their work and to be the mothers of spirits in the world to come. The world does not understand this—they cannot receive it—they do not know what it means, and it is sometimes hard for those who ought to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gospel—even for some of us, to comprehend, but it is true. (Gospel Doctrine, 461)

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

Quote

It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses. (“Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” Relief Society Magazine, Jan 1959, 5–6)

John Taylor said:

Quote

[God] has called us to high privileges, to thrones and principalities and dominions, and to be saviors on Mount Zion, and to be kings and priests unto God, and our wives, queens and priestesses unto their husbands, while God has ordained us for this, in the name of Israel's God we will try and carry it out. (Journal of Discourses, 22:311, August 28, 1881)

Melvin J. Ballard said:

Quote

If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God. And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever.   (Conference Report, October 1934, 121)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...