oops Women

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

Men have traditionally been the ones who work outside the home to make a living or to make their way in the world.  Men's influence in the world is both a result of their different nature from women and the source or place of impact on that influence.  In the history of the world, what percentage of the various heads of state have been men?  Probably pretty close to 99.9%.  When competing tribes are in conflict- who are the one's who go and settle things?  The men.  (They likely started the conflict too).  

The bottom line from my perspective is that the influence each of us has is something we will be accountable for at judgement.  And looking through history, men's influence on society and family is different than that of women.  And men will bare a different accountability accordingly.  The men of Noah's day have a certain accountability for the suffering of the people of that time.  The women do too, of course.  But I believe it is just a little different.  Now if a man living in Noah's day was righteous and tried his best to uphold goodness and virtue, he would NOT be held responsible like those who jumped on the sin and destruction bandwagon.  Make sense?  It really is just another reminder to us to be careful about what we do and say and our influence on other people.  

Does this help at all?

Yes, i'm understanding better what you mean, thank you.

From my perspective, men's influence in the world is a result of patriarchy (i'm not saying that patriarchy is a bad thing in and of itself, only that it gives men power and influence which it does not give to women).  In a matriarchal world, I don't think that men would have the influence that they do and so would not be the gender wreaking the most havoc historically, which, to me, means that men's influence is not a result of their different nature's but their different opportunities.  It would be interesting to study the few matriarchal societies that have existed to see if that's true or not.

I'm mostly intrigued by the bolded statement above though.  Since we are looking at this issue from the angle of the temple endowment, which no man or woman should be receiving, unless they are righteous and trying to uphold goodness and virtue, aren't men and women in that setting equal in their culpability in the problems of the world?   I mean, yes, world and evil men have caused more heartache and horror than women because of the historical influence and power they have wielded, but for the people going through the temple, that shouldn't be true, right?  The two groups should be about equal in their affect for good or ill on society.

If that's true, that men and women in the temple (because of their shared goal of being good people) are about equal in their culpability in spreading evil or destruction, then what's the point of the different wording that you've been alluding too?  Why hold men to a higher accountability who are, for all intents and purpose, no more culpable for those things than the women in the room are?  

Are parts of the temple meant to apply or speak to the world at large more than the specific people in the room?
 

 

[Calm]

I think the intensity of desire to do evil is most important.  If a man wanted to rape and murder all those he encountered and fantasizes about it and would act upon it able, would not he be judged and have to repent even if he was aa quadriplegic and unable to move, in solitary confinement in prison and unable to reach victims, or fully functional and out killing people?

If a woman was only able to give pain and suffering to family members because no one else would listen to her to give her power, but she would push the red button to start a nuclear war if it ever came within her reach...is she not as evil at heart as the man who actually does it willingly out of evil and is not the man who does it because he thinks in the long run humanity will be better less evil, even if he is trageically wrong?

Edited September 18, 2017 by Calm

[Meerkat]

13 hours ago, DJBrown said:

 Now I do not pretend to claim that men are less righteous than women or anything like that- such a claim has always bothered me.  But men's weaknesses and sins are manifested in a way that is different than the weaknesses and sins of women.  And can you think of any other two manifestations of sin that translate into more suffering than war and infidelity?  I can't.  

 Her womanly wisdom was a key factor in mankind's progress.  If Adam and Eve were placed in the garden 100 times, the outcome would be the same.  Eve would partake of the fruit first.  And that is a good think.

Ultimately, men and women are simply different.  Not in ways that make one gender better or worse than another.  And in God's wisdom, the path of discipleship for both are very similar, but also tailored for the strengths and weakness of each gender.  

If men are not less righteous then they are equally accountable for their own individual sins.  Salvation happens one by one, not as a group.  We will be judged by the same criteria, otherwise God is a partial God.  "16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" 1 Peter 1:16-17 We may prejudge large groups of people such as men and women, Indians and Chinese.  But prejudices often melt away when we engage individually.  And that is how we will all be judged, one by one regardless of gender.

I agree that we are different, and with the concept of womanly wisdom.  I also believe that Mother Eve deliberately chose to partake (not due to deception or friendly banter with Satan, but out of thoughtful and possibly prayerful deliberation.--  I know, prayerful may seem like a stretch.  I just hold Mother Eve in the highest esteem, and think of her as one the most virtuous of all women.  Prayer would not be out of character for her.  It seems reasonable to me that Eve's choice to pray may have elicited a response from Heavenly Father, thus enlightening her mind.) Wisely, she influenced Adam to partake.   Both kept the greater of the two commandments, forcing both out of the Garden and making possible our mortal existence. 

[Meerkat]

17 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Not a free pass but certainly less accountability. In the heirarchy, men are closer to god and his level of accountability. Women are closer to children and their level of accountability. 

Then God is a respecter of persons after all?  Women have less accountability? That sounds like affirmative action to me.  How is that fair?  You aren't saying most women are mentally deficient or handicapped, are you?  

Edited September 18, 2017 by Meerkat

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Then God is a respecter of persons after all?  Women have less accountability? That sounds like affirmative action to me.  How is that fair?  You aren't saying most women are mentally deficient or handicapped, are you?  

I'm not defending the way the temple creates gender differences, just confirming that it does. I hope the language will change towards equality. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

If men are not less righteous then they are equally accountable for their own individual sins.  Salvation happens one by one, not as a group.  We will be judged by the same criteria, otherwise God is a partial God.  "16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" 1 Peter 1:16-17 We may prejudge large groups of people such as men and women, Indians and Chinese.  But prejudices often melt away when we engage individually.  And that is how we will all be judged, one by one regardless of gender.

I agree that we are different, and with the concept of womanly wisdom.  I also believe that Mother Eve deliberately chose to partake (not due to deception or friendly banter with Satan, but out of thoughtful and possibly prayerful deliberation.--  I know, prayerful may seem like a stretch.  I just hold Mother Eve in the highest esteem, and think of her as one the most virtuous of all women.  Prayer would not be out of character for her.  It seems reasonable to me that Eve's choice to pray may have elicited a response from Heavenly Father, thus enlightening her mind.) Wisely, she influenced Adam to partake.   Both kept the greater of the two commandments, forcing both out of the Garden and making possible our mortal existence. 

How do you interpret the part in the temple ceremony (which comes from verses in the Pearl of Great Price) where it implies that Eve was deceived (the specific word it uses is beguiled)?

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

How do you interpret the part in the temple ceremony (which comes from verses in the Pearl of Great Price) where it implies that Eve was deceived (the specific word it uses is beguiled)?

I wouldn't preach my theory on Mother Eve from the pulpit.  I did think about the word beguile before responding.  I'm pretty sure the definition intended in the scriptures does imply Eve was deceived.  However, consider body language when acting on the "deception," the tone of her questions, etc. The attitudes of both Adam and Eve when responding in Genesis 3:12 and 13 give me the impression they knew what they were doing, and were glad.  (How does all that strike you?)

Based on that perspective, I take an old alternate definition of the word beguile to mean:

Dated

help (time) pass pleasantly.

"to beguile some of the time they went to the movie theater"

synonyms:

entertain, amuse, delight, please, occupy, absorb, engage, distract, divert, fascinate, enthrall, engross "the program has been beguiling children for years"

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I wouldn't preach my theory on Mother Eve from the pulpit.  I did think about the word beguile before responding.  I'm pretty sure the definition intended in the scriptures does imply Eve was deceived.  However, consider body language when acting on the "deception," the tone of her questions, etc. The attitudes of both Adam and Eve when responding in Genesis 3:12 and 13 give me the impression they knew what they were doing, and were glad.  (How does all that strike you?)

Based on that perspective, I take an old alternate definition of the word beguile to mean:

Dated

help (time) pass pleasantly.

"to beguile some of the time they went to the movie theater"

synonyms:

entertain, amuse, delight, please, occupy, absorb, engage, distract, divert, fascinate, enthrall, engross "the program has been beguiling children for years"

Ok, thanks. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I wouldn't preach my theory on Mother Eve from the pulpit.  I did think about the word beguile before responding.  I'm pretty sure the definition intended in the scriptures does imply Eve was deceived.  However, consider body language when acting on the "deception," the tone of her questions, etc. The attitudes of both Adam and Eve when responding in Genesis 3:12 and 13 give me the impression they knew what they were doing, and were glad.  (How does all that strike you?)

Based on that perspective, I take an old alternate definition of the word beguile to mean:

Dated

help (time) pass pleasantly.

"to beguile some of the time they went to the movie theater"

synonyms:

entertain, amuse, delight, please, occupy, absorb, engage, distract, divert, fascinate, enthrall, engross "the program has been beguiling children for years"

I don't think the director's choice (whether instructed by Apostles or not) on the actor's body language should be given weight to interpret scripture.

It may indicate current belief, but I don't think one can retroactively insert that belief into the meaning of the word the original writer intended.

[Buckeye]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

How do you interpret the part in the temple ceremony (which comes from verses in the Pearl of Great Price) where it implies that Eve was deceived (the specific word it uses is beguiled)?

Could you interpret it that Eve was beguiled as to who she was speaking to, but not beguiled as to the nature of her choice to partake and experience mortality? That allows for Eve to be an actor with agency, but still tricked in the sense that she did not know who was teaching her.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Could you interpret it that Eve was beguiled as to who she was speaking to, but not beguiled as to the nature of her choice to partake and experience mortality? That allows for Eve to be an actor with agency, but still tricked in the sense that she did not know who was teaching her.

I suppose you could.

Does who she was speaking to make any difference in the context of the question that God asked her?

 (Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, if so thou shouldst surely die?  And the man said: The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat.  And I, the Lord God, said unto the woman: What is this thing which thou hast done?" 

 I've never considered that.

[BlueDreams]

This isn't to anyone specifically. But I think the differences between the two initiatories when it comes to accountability is definitely being stretched here. I don't think this is intentional and I don't know the men's side in language (i do in procedure. The biggest difference to me there is that work for the living and dead men in initiatories is started with Melchizedek priesthood ordination). Women are by no means given a free or less strenuous pass to CK blessings. All the washing, annointing, and clothing ordinances (and subsequent promises and blessings) are based on the person's earnest obedience and faithfulness to living the gospel of Jesus Christ and living up to one's covenants. Accountability as a word isn't ever used in the temple language to begin with. The concept is in that all are accountable to the covenants made in the temple. But the potential to be lost to satan or to fall into darkened courses is not gendered in the endowment ceremony. The effects of sinning or apostatizing are the same.

 

Also the first covenants of the endowment that are held in initiatories are not covenants that are mediated through our husbands. They are directly related to are relationship to God in language. One of the blessings described is then tied to counsel with husbands. That context would then tie to the main endowment, IMHO, in a way that's basically saying "I'm willing to work with him in the Lord" he is not a mediator. I personally see the covenants and wording on the women's ordinances as indicating a binding and willingness to use our power and authority in tangent with are male partners to better complete the work of God. Yes, I do think that could be made more clear in the language and depictions. And yes, I can understand how others can not see that. But the more I study it, have memorized it, and sought it out in scripture, the more I'm convinced of this. 

 

With luv,

BD

     

[Meerkat]

On 9/18/2017 at 3:33 PM, Calm said:

I don't think the director's choice (whether instructed by Apostles or not) on the actor's body language should be given weight to interpret scripture.

It may indicate current belief, but I don't think one can retroactively insert that belief into the meaning of the word the original writer intended.

Prophecies of the scriptures are not of private interpretation, according to 2 Peter 1:20.  I agree with you on that.  But I find much of what I read in the scriptures is not necessarily prophecy.   Probably most of my scripture and Temple experience is subjective.  It may strike you one way, and me another depending on what we need to get out of it, or maybe what kind of mood we're in.  Does that make sense?  I want to believe my observation has some validity, or that it is okay for a personal speculation or even revelation.  Maybe it is personal and I shouldn't share those thoughts in a forum like this.  But I am interested in different perspectives, so I venture hopefully not crossing over any important lines.

Regarding the word "beguiled," I can see it being used as deception, as you and Blue bell point out.  In Genesus 3:16, God told Eve that he would "greatly multiply thy sorrow."  Yet he told Adam "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow thou shalt eat of it all the days of they life." Their sorrows may have been equal, but Eve seems to have sorrow multiplied, as opposed to Adam's sorrow.  I still believe Eve's act was  valiant.  Perhaps Justice required a greater price for disobedience for Eve's decision not to obey that commandment. She made it, knowing it would be hard, but worth it.

Same thing with the Savior in a way.  He didn't want to move forward.  But He did it for the sake of God's Plan, even though justice required such a terrible price from a completely innocent Savior.

I was surprised to learn from my wife the other day that she wished she didn't feel her role was minimized.  It has been discouraging to her.  But she never said anything to me about it.  Never, as Temple workers, or husband and wife in our many wonderful conversations. We talk a lot every day. I thought I knew how she felt about everything.  Not that.  Maybe she doesn't grasp how I feel about those and other important things either.  As I get older, I see the woman's role as  much weghtier than the man's.  But if we don't really understand each other like we thought we did,  we probably ought to discuss more.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Meerkat

[Calm]

"Does that make sense?  I want to believe my observation has some validity, or that it is okay for a personal speculation or even revelation.  Maybe it is personal and I shouldn't share those thoughts in a forum like this.  But I am interested in different perspectives, so I venture hopefully not crossing over any important lines."

This is my viewpoint.

I don't have any problem with you or I (because my reaction is much the same) looking at the way Eve is portrayed and thinking "that is informing the way I view Eve".  If I feel it connects to a sense of pure intelligence of which I believe I have had a few, then I believe God has found the pathways my mind has taken as acceptable and I believe he is my likely guide at those times, me thinking thoughts I have never considered before usually.

I just think we should not confuse our own spiritual experience with what triggered it, even if that is also a spiritual experience.

"Perhaps Justice required a greater price for disobedience for Eve's decision not to obey that commandment."  Quite possible.  But the Atonement should bring that payment to an end with repentance so whatever price, it would not be an eternal one nor should it be passed on to her daughters (and why not her sons? Why didn't the kids get both curses if it was just about what a parent did and not something else much more convoluted).  Temple language makes it appear Eternal for Eve and all the women who follow her.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps Justice required a greater price for disobedience for Eve's decision not to obey that commandment."  Quite possible.  But the Atonement should bring that payment to an end with repentance so whatever price, it would not be an eternal one nor should it be passed on to her daughters (and why not her sons? Why didn't the kids get both curses if it was just about what a parent did and not something else much more consulted)

I enjoy your comment and agree about the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Doesn't our 2nd Article of Faith resolve it not being passed on to daughters and sons?   "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  According to Genesis 3, there is an enmity between the adversary and Eve's seed (which would mean daughters and sons.)  Is that what you are talking about? If so, isn't that the gift of opposition in all things that Eve set in motion with her decision to partake? Now each of us partake, fill our cup with enough sorrows that we understand our hopeless state without the Savior. Without that curse, we would be sunk.   I've gone over the Endowment in my mind and am missing what you are seeing.  I will pay better attention next time through.  

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Temple language makes it appear Eternal for Eve and all the women who follow her.

I think what's eternal is the opportunity to make the same choice between good and evil that Eve did.  I feel like I must be missing what you are seeing.  

[cdowis]

On 8/24/2017 at 10:32 AM, stemelbow said:

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-for-women-equality/5835/

Is this mostly due to the Church's influence on the state's culture and it's view of women? 

Utah coming in last.  But it's not that its last.  If you look at the index, the number for Utah is substantially lower than the 49th ranked state.  Meaning, not only is Utah last, but it's way behind. 

Maybe a little surprising to me. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Is this all you have? 

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Is this all you have? 

Tacenda...if I do dishes three times a day..is there a promise there me?? 

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Is this all you have? 

Of course I have more, BUT I would get banned for life.  Anyway........

Miss America 1942

Edited October 3, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Here are two of the judges

[cdowis]

HELP!!!!

Please somebody stop me.

Edited October 3, 2017 by cdowis