The beguiling of Eve

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. What she said is still true, unmarried women will be servants. Everything doesn't have to be about the menz all the time. 

Holy cow.

You are the one making everything about men no one else.

[pogi]

On 4/4/2018 at 10:51 PM, theplains said:

It all boils down to whether you believe God really wanted them to disobey Him.

No, he did not want them to disobey.  That idea is totally convoluted, contradictory, and inconsistent in my opinion.  Of course, my opinion on this subject is rather unusual, but I feel that it is strongly supported by scripture and reason.

It is my belief that God was preparing Adam and Eve to partake of the sacrament of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  Lucifer took advantage of the opportunity to take the place of God.  By so doing, Lucifer made Adam and Eve feel more comfortable in his presence then they felt in the presence of God - so they hid from God. 

One fundamental principle that is often overlooked, for some reason, is that God will always provide a way to obey.  The first two commandments were not contradictory - Adam and Eve were not set up to disobey one or the other. 

Quote

 

1 Nephi 3:7 
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

1 Nephi 17:3, 50.
 And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and strengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did provide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness. 50) And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them...

D&C 5:34
Yea, for this cause I have said: Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee.

1 Corinth 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

"Going through someone to get to God"

Hebrews 10

 

Quote

 

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Actually, women require a man to even get out of the grave let alone the CK.  <cough>  

It is very interesting seeing men who still can't admit the inequity in so many patriarchal beliefs now refusing to face them head on...or even acknowledge they exist.  It used to be that we would have them thrown in our faces nonstop. I guess that is progress of some sort? Unfortunately, they won't die out as the old "not doctrinal" beliefs as long as they remain in the temple and scripture that is still used. 

Men also require a man to get out of the grave.  So that makes them equal right.

And if they are part of the temple and scripture I don't see they can be considered "not doctrinal".  And certainly should not die out.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, women require a man to even get out of the grave let alone the CK.  <cough>  

It is very interesting seeing men who still can't admit the inequity in so many patriarchal beliefs now refusing to face them head on...or even acknowledge they exist.  It used to be that we would have them thrown in our faces nonstop. I guess that is progress of some sort? Unfortunately, they won't die out as the old "not doctrinal" beliefs as long as they remain in the temple and scripture that is still used. 

Ah yes so now we throw out all patriarchy and scripture because it is sexist

Ok that clarifies your position- no more reply is necessary.

I affirm the Proclamation, we all make our own choices based on life experience.  Mine is in harmony with the Proclamation and so is that of my wife.  Equality with differences, and complimentary roles, needing each other.

And some day we shall return to that view.

It is inevitable.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Then why are women covenanting to be a priestess to their man instead of God? Come on, there is truth to all positions but it isn't cool to just avoid the proof that not all is equal in the CK, if you take your covenants seriously. And just because we "need" another person to gain entry does NOT mean those persons are equal, that is a totally separate question. I don't often agree with Tacenda but she is bringing up a very valid point and it is kind of jaw dropping to see temple ritual being dismissed out of hand. 

Tehcnically in LDS doctrine we ALL pray to a chain of Gods extending beyond eternities and beyond our ability to comprehend.

We worship the Family called "God" stretching back into eternities and we all have our place in the Family.

Brigham Young taught that there is "only one God with whom we have to do" in trying to explain the Council of the Gods etc and what Joseph taught about generations of Gods.

If one is God- as is proposed by LDS doctrine- that exaltaiton is "Godhood" then presumably the wife of God is a Goddess AND yet the daughter NOT of Eloheim but of another God, then she owes THAT God her allegence.  But  as covenanted, IF AND ONLY IF her husband is righteous- and perfectly follows a specific God, perhaps let's say named "Eloheim" then her husband himself presides in THEIR kingdom as God and Goddess IN THEIR OWN KINGDOM and yet owing their being to "Grandpa God" as well.

This is the mythology- or reality - of what our doctrine is.   I am explaining it now in a secular way to convey the concept.

One is no longer in that case praying to the present ONE to whom we now pray,  for convenience let's us the name "Eloheim" the Goddess would be "praying" to her "husband" Fred as well as Eloheim, and Eloheim himself, our Father presumably prays "up" the generations of Gods before him- to his father etc.to Grandpa God and great Grandpa God and etc.

Why do we think genealogy is so important to us?   We have a different twist on "ancestor worship".   We do temple work for our ancestors that they too can be gods and goddesses, like it or not if that sounds bizarre to you.  The fruit of that belief gives our lives meaning and ourselves a place in the eternities- as as part of the Great Plan of Exaltatiton- the immortality and eternal life of Man

That is a central concept of eternal progression.  "There are Gods many.. but our Father is the only God with which we have to do"

The covenant made in the temple is FOR THAT EVENTUALITY and not under the presumption that Fred is now a God and one must "go through Fred "to reach Eloheim- and Grandpa and Grandma and all their progenitors!

No one is dismissing anything out of hand.

Tacenda does not understand that.  Presumably you do.

You are not "going through your husband to get to God" - you are honoring his place and by doing so YOUR place in the eternities.  YOU are a DAUGHTER of your God Eloheim and don't need Fred to get to God-  you covenant to take his counsel AS HE TAKES GOD's counsel.  Presumably as part of the Family his counsel will be Eloheim's counsel as much as the Holy Ghost and Eloheim and Christ all agree.

YOU will essentially be one of the Council of Gods and then and only then will you be a "priestess"

THAT is the covenant

If he's no Priest and God and YOU are not a Priestess, the whole thing is off anyway.  If you are a team and make it together OR it's not happening.

Edited April 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy cow.

You are the one making everything about men no one else.

In a response to a comment about discomfort with unmarried women being servants, the response was the below and it is an answer to a woman's discomfort by stating/implying  'it is good enough for men' and 'the men aren't complaining' so I certainly get why Juliann sees it as all about the men.

"I found it extraordinarily perplexing that someone would narrow that down to an unmarried woman being a servant, as if women were somehow being singled out as servants.  What about unmarried men?  Unmarried men get to be masters?  

The Doctrine and Covenants makes very clear that the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who are married for all eternity.  The two lower degrees are as high as unmarried men OR women can go."

I don't think it is about unmarried women being singled out, but the concept of servanthood being applied to a group of people who in general in most of history have lived as servants without choice, thus there is sensitivity over the label.

It is similar imo to Jews not being satisfied with an answer that temple work is okay because we are offering it to everyone and people get to choose because that answer comes within the context of forced Christian baptism and their children losing their heritage, losing their bond with their ancestors (the bond that Mormons see strengthened by temple work).

-----

The last part of the response (see below) is a better reply because it addresses in part why the relationship of servant is a good thing (we are connected to God through our choice to serve him as he is connected to us by his choice to serve us through the Atonement and other blessings he provides) as opposed to trying to make it okay 'because men have to do it too' especially given there appears to some that there is a hierarchy still in place that could be read that the servant men will still be treating women as servants, but the reverse may not be true.

"As for being a servant, guess what, we are ALL servants of God!  He is our ETERNAL father, and our ETERNAL master, and that master-servant relationship never ends."

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Going through someone to get to God"

Hebrews 10

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

John 14: 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

In a response to a comment about discomfort with unmarried women being servants, the response was the below and it is an answer to a woman's discomfort by stating/implying  'it is good enough for men' and 'the men aren't complaining' so I certainly get why Juliann sees it as all about the men.

"I found it extraordinarily perplexing that someone would narrow that down to an unmarried woman being a servant, as if women were somehow being singled out as servants.  What about unmarried men?  Unmarried men get to be masters?  

The Doctrine and Covenants makes very clear that the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who are married for all eternity.  The two lower degrees are as high as unmarried men OR women can go."

I don't think it is about unmarried women being singled out, but the concept of servanthood being applied to a group of people who in general in most of history have lived as servants without choice, thus there is sensitivity over the label.

It is similar imo to Jews not being satisfied with an answer that temple work is okay because we are offering it to everyone and people get to choose because that answer comes within the context of forced Christian baptism and their children losing their heritage, losing their bond with their ancestors (the bond that Mormons see strengthened by temple work).

-----

The last part of the response (see below) is a better reply because it addresses in part why the relationship of servant is a good thing (we are connected to God through our choice to serve him as he is connected to us by his choice to serve us through the Atonement and other blessings he provides) as opposed to trying to make it okay 'because men have to do it too' especially given there appears to some that there is a hierarchy still in place that could be read that the servant men will still be treating women as servants, but the reverse may not be true.

"As for being a servant, guess what, we are ALL servants of God!  He is our ETERNAL father, and our ETERNAL master, and that master-servant relationship never ends."

It is said that ALL who are not sealed in the temple will be servants. That is men and women.

Regarding the rest of your comments, I cannot follow them because there are no sources quoted.

I don't feel like going back and trying to figure out who said what to whom, to find the context of the comments

I don't see how women are singled out since single men also become servants. Quite honestly it all looks like hypersensitive paranoia to me.

Besides that if everyone is taught the gospel on the other side and men or women after knowing they will be servants decide still not to be sealed then I suppose one could say that they got what they wanted. Frankly I see most of it as metaphor. I see a lot of it as self-contradictory. If every knee bows and every tongue confesses that the gospel is true why would people freely elect not to fulfill its requirements?

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It is said that ALL who are not sealed in the temple will be servants. That is men and women.

Regarding the rest of your comments, I cannot follow them because there are no sources quoted.

I don't feel like going back and trying to figure out who said what to whom, to find the context of the comments

I don't see how women are singled out since single men also become servants. Quite honestly it all looks like hypersensitive paranoia to me.

I didn't say women were singled out.

Do you believe a Jew is being hypersensitive if they protest to their ancestors being proxy baptized even if everyone else is getting proxy work if not done before death?  Your view on that would help me know if I should try to explain my reasoning again.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't say women were singled out.

Do you believe a Jew is being hypersensitive if they protest to their ancestors being proxy baptized even if everyone else is getting proxy work if not done before death?  Your view on that would help me know if I should try to explain my reasoning again.

Who is "everyone else"?  I don't understand the sentence.  "Getting proxy work if not done before death"??

I have relatives who are Polish Catholic who will not speak to me because I made "grandma a Mormon without her consent".  Yes- NOW I know I should not have done that but in my enthusiasm to convert my family I was baptizing everyone I could get enough info on to do so.

That may have something to do with the psychology behind Jewish demands to cease temple work OR what that has to do with women

It seems you are saying that because women have been abused through history they are hypersensitive about being called "servants" but that is what I said as well.

[Calm]

No, I am not saying I find it "hypersensitive".  I find it reasonable especially when the "women are servants" culture is still pretty persistent globally and even in advanced societies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-two-career-marriages-women-still-do-more-of-the-work-at-home-1443600654

"Women also are more likely to take time out of their career for the partner’s sake: Five times as many senior men have stay-at-home partners as their female peers do, according to the survey."

I also don't find it "hypersensitive" when Jews get ticked off when they find out holocaust victims of famous Jews have been proxy baptized.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

No, I am not saying I find it "hypersensitive".  I find it reasonable especially when the "women are servants" culture is still pretty persistent globally and even in advanced societies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-two-career-marriages-women-still-do-more-of-the-work-at-home-1443600654

"Women also are more likely to take time out of their career for the partner’s sake: Five times as many senior men have stay-at-home partners as their female peers do, according to the survey."

I also don't find it "hypersensitive" when Jews get ticked off when they find out holocaust victims of famous Jews have been proxy baptized.

So you find it reasonable that they should be upset that someone prays for their dead?

If someone put a voodoo curse on one of my deceased loved ones I would laugh, because I do not believe in voodoo.  Put a curse on me- I don't care.  I would not mount a protest against voodoo practitioners to stop doing what they do because I don't care.  

To me this is PRECISELY like me worrying about what gay people do in their bedrooms- it has nothing to do with me, has no harm to me nor do I care.

So because women are sensitive to being called "servants" in other cultures then they are unable to understand hierarchy and that everyone is not a leader?  It really doesn't bother me to know that I will never and can never be president of the United States, nor lead great companies, nor be a General in the US Army or even a Sargent for that matter.  So being a Goddess is not good enough because there will be someone else who presides in MY kingdom?   A king while I am only a queen?

Honestly this is beyond me.  I will take being Bill Gates number two man any day of the week, yessir whatever you want SIR!  Just sign the check.  Your suit pressed and waiting?  YESSIR!  If that qualifies as a "servant" and gives me everything in my life I could dream of, then gimme gimme.

But we are not even talking about women actually BEING a "servant" we are talking about being a QUEEN.

Perhaps that lack of understanding is another example of my limitations which I accept.

But if you can explain it I am game still for more discussion.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Five times as many senior men have stay-at-home partners as their female peers do, according to the survey."

Do you think maybe that has something to do with the fact women live longer and actually want to care for their ailing spouses while they can?

Bogus evidence of anything.

Do women do more housework even if they are CEO's?   I don't doubt that and that never should be the case.  It's ridiculous.  

Let the dishes pile up til your ol man gets off his duff.   Works for my wife. 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

Not always...but more than likely...a woman is the one who will be the compromised..the one who steps back and waits for her desires while other things (partner/family) comes first.  Sad but true..she is "gopher girl" ..go fer that ...go fer this...and where is my sandwich???  That all being said, in recent years, I have seen a change that is must do..and good.  Men are stepping up and women are speaking out...we are all special..the kids need to see this.

[Thinking]

While still active LDS, I believed that eventually God would have directed Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit when they were ready (milk before meat). Lucifer hoped that eating the fruit early would ruin the plan.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If every knee bows and every tongue confesses that the gospel is true why would people freely elect not to fulfill its requirements?

I think I can speak to this. We all fail to live up to our own standards sometimes.  It is not enough to know that God is God, or to know that the gospel is true.  For example, Adam knew God face to face, yet he chose to hide from him.  Satan had grip on his heart, despite his knowledge.  He instilled the seed of toxic shame.  That is Satan's greatest tool.  It causes us to hide from God, and betray our true desires.  Paul wrote about this phenomenon in Romans 7 - 

Quote

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate, I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! 

Paul is perfectly describing the experience and chains of toxic shame - the root of addictions, compulsions, hiding, isolation, and fear of exposure because we believe that we are "wretched".  He perfectly answers your question as to why some may fully believe but fail to fulfill the requirements. When toxic shame takes root in our hearts, we do not allow ourselves to fulfill the requirements of the gospel, because that would lead to the full exposure of the light of God without any fig leaves to cover us - which we are not ready for until the shame is healed.

Edited April 7, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

While still active LDS, I believed that eventually God would have directed Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit when they were ready (milk before meat). Lucifer hoped that eating the fruit early would ruin the plan.

What!? There is another one like me out there? 

[Thinking]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

What!? There is another one like me out there? 

Let's just say that part of the language of the presentation of the endowment hinted at that. I won't say anymore for obvious reasons.

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Let's just say that part of the language of the presentation of the endowment hinted at that. I won't say anymore for obvious reasons.

Yep, I noticed that too.  You are the first person I have met who has independently made the same observation.  It feels good not to be alone.

Edited April 7, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think I can speak to this. We all fail to live up to our own standards sometimes.  It is not enough to know that God is God, or to know that the gospel is true.  For example, Adam knew God face to face, yet he chose to hide from him.  Satan had grip on his heart, despite his knowledge.  He instilled the seed of toxic shame.  That is Satan's greatest tool.  It causes us to hide from God, and betray our true desires.  Paul wrote about this phenomenon in Romans 7 - 

Paul is perfectly describing the experience and chains of toxic shame - the root of addictions, compulsions, hiding, isolation, and fear of exposure because we believe that we are "wretched".  He perfectly answers your question as to why some may fully believe but fail to fulfill the requirements. When toxic shame takes root in our hearts, we do not allow ourselves to fulfill the requirements of the gospel, because that would lead to the full exposure of the light of God without any fig leaves to cover us - which we are not ready for until the shame is healed.

Excellent stuff, thanks. I know that scripture will but zoned out. Thanks for getting me back on track.

Edited April 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

While still active LDS, I believed that eventually God would have directed Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit when they were ready (milk before meat). Lucifer hoped that eating the fruit early would ruin the plan.

Dang that's another great point. I'm learning all kinds of stuff today.

[Calm]

"So you find it reasonable that they should be upset that someone prays for their dead?"

Baptism is more than a prayer.

Voodoo curses are not something your ancestors had to endure on the pain of death nor did they result a child being lost to their people.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

What!? There is another one like me out there? 

There are a few, I have heard this speculation a number of times over the years.  You are not as odd as you thought.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you think maybe that has something to do with the fact women live longer and actually want to care for their ailing spouses while they can?

Bogus evidence of anything.

Do women do more housework even if they are CEO's?   I don't doubt that and that never should be the case.  It's ridiculous.  

Let the dishes pile up til your ol man gets off his duff.   Works for my wife. 

 

"Senior" referred to executive positions in companies from what I could tell from the context, not age.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm