The beguiling of Eve

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You are not as odd as you thought.

I keep trying to tell my wife that, but she won't believe me

Do you know of any books or writings of that opinion?

[Calm]

No, it has been in discussions here and in 'real life'.  if such were mentioned, I don't remember it.

I can ask at FM if you want me to...see if any of them know of something.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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

So because rich working guys statistically have stay-at-home wives more often than rich working women have stay-at-home husbands is an indicator that women are seen as "servants"?

It's ok let's just drop it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So because rich working guys statistically have stay-at-home wives more often than rich working women have stay-at-home husbands is an indicator that women are seen as "servants"?

It's ok let's just drop it.

You don't have to answer, but that is not what I said.

It is not so much being seen as servants in more advanced countries, but rather how expectations and treatment leads to a subservient position (the remnants of what used to amount as servitude or worse in many cultures)...such as a wife may still be expected by many to give up her career to help her husband advance in his while the same would not be expected of a man.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So because rich working guys statistically have stay-at-home wives more often than rich working women have stay-at-home husbands is an indicator that women are seen as "servants"?

It's ok let's just drop it.

A while back in the thread you said I don't get it, I get it. I know what the Bible says, and I know where we got the Adam & Eve story in the temple. From the Bible in Genesis.http://www.bible.ca/marriage/submission-independent-of-culture.htm

Joseph took what is in these scriptures and applied them to the temple ceremony. I'll never forget the day I was endowed and had to promise to obey my husband. I tried to conceal the shock on my face that day. They've since toned it down, and now it has the woman hearkening unto her husband as he hearkens unto the Lord.

In the Bible, Adam was in trouble for listening to Eve, so maybe that's why women are forever paying for Eve's mistake. But you know what? What if it's all allegory, what if men wanted to rule over women and wrote Genesis for that purpose. Maybe if it hadn't been written like that, women wouldn't be abused like they have for thousands of years.

And why don't we hear about the women prophets in the Bible, in our church? It seems that it just gets put to the side. And why aren't women brought up much in the manuals and why aren't their teachings or talks studied like men's?  

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You don't have to answer, but that is not what I said.

It is not so much being seen as servants in more advanced countries, but rather how expectations and treatment leads to a subservient position (the remnants of what used to amount as servitude or worse in many cultures)...such as a wife may still be expected by many to give up her career to help her husband advance in his while the same would not be expected of a man.

So then how would you adjust the endowment to make you happy?

[Rain]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So then how would you adjust the endowment to make you happy?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't this line of discussion been about why some women struggle with the temple rather than "I want to change the temple"?

I've told my husband some of the things said here and he said, "would it be so hard to try to consider this from a woman's point of view and say, 'I can see why you would feel or think that?' 

There are some women who will only be happy if it is all changed. Most, that I know, are happy if our feelings are considered and/or the temple is prayerfully pondered over by our leaders. It can truly be amazing what happens for women when they know the are heard and listened to even if nothing else changes.

[Stargazer]

On 4/6/2018 at 10:56 PM, 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. 

And it doesn't have to be about the womenz either. For heaven's sake indeed.  Why can't I say something doctrinally correct (or prove me wrong, Juliann) about the subject at hand without getting the riot act read to me?

SHE is making it about women.  I'M trying to tell her that it isn't all about women, or about HER.  It's about Father's goals with respect to His children.  His goal is the Exaltation of as many of His children as He can obtain.  That exaltation applies only to those who have entered into the sacrament of eternal marriage, and whose marriages have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  

The rest of us, regardless of whether we will be in the two lower levels of the CK or either of the TKs, will be servants of the Most High, worlds without end.  Regardless of our sex.

I'm not talking about menz or womenz.  I'm trying to disabuse her of her misunderstanding.  Is this still permitted?  Or need I forevermore stay out of conversations that verge into this particular subject matter?

Or is the complaint simply over being a servant? That she understands the point already but just doesn't like it? Well, if that'sthe case, then I withdraw from the conversation, because I have nothing to offer in consolation. 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Stargazer

[Maidservant]

On 3/28/2018 at 6:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So he "beguiled" her, or so he thought.  In the event, however, he was correct for the wrong reasons and Eve could see that there was no other way to make God's plan work.  God knew that she would do the right thing all along, wink-wink.

Eve was interviewing Satan (at various points), not the other way around.  She always had a bead on him, at least to the level of where she was at, at a given time.  If you get a look on Satan's face when he gives Eve the fruit, he becomes terrified as if he has just made the biggest mistake of his life--as if he realizes he no longer knows exactly what is going on, while she did all along. If you take a look at face, positions, Eve was never listening to Satan, she was checking for and receiving revelation.  The entire presentation--even going into the world--is a presentation of Eve in the process of thrashing Satan--or her part of it.  With the help of the men who love her, of course.  (This works whether you consider Eve-Adam as woman-man, or some other thing as church-humanity, spirit-body or body-spirit, divine-flesh, savior-saved, etc.)

On 4/6/2018 at 12:39 PM, FrankCurtis said:

If Eve went through all that for the forbidden fruit, imagine what she would do for a Klondike bar

  quite a bit, he he he.

On 4/6/2018 at 2:47 PM, juliann said:

Then why are women covenanting to be a priestess to their man instead of God?

"to" is a word that has no direction in the sentence, neither horizontal, neither vertical.  the word "to" can take on any direction, according to what is independently understood

On 4/6/2018 at 3:00 PM, juliann said:

Actually, women require a man to even get out of the grave

I get myself out of the grave.  I say this pointing to the same moment as would be the foundation of your saying what you have said.

On 4/6/2018 at 3:08 PM, pogi said:

 the sacrament of the fruit of the tree of knowledge

love this.  nice.  Going to ponder on it a bit more.  I have always said that coming to Earth is an ordinance (from the point of view of the previous life), and that it (coming to Earth) is indeed our baptism requirement.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So then how would you adjust the endowment to make you happy?

I am not unhappy with it.  I am happy with it even.

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Eve was interviewing Satan (at various points), not the other way around.  She always had a bead on him, at least to the level of where she was at, at a given time.  If you get a look on Satan's face when he gives Eve the fruit, he becomes terrified as if he has just made the biggest mistake of his life--as if he realizes he no longer knows exactly what is going on, while she did all along. If you take a look at face, positions, Eve was never listening to Satan, she was checking for and receiving revelation.  The entire presentation--even going into the world--is a presentation of Eve in the process of thrashing Satan--or her part of it.  With the help of the men who love her, of course.  (This works whether you consider Eve-Adam as woman-man, or some other thing as church-humanity, spirit-body or body-spirit, divine-flesh, savior-saved, etc.)

  quite a bit, he he he.

"to" is a word that has no direction in the sentence, neither horizontal, neither vertical.  the word "to" can take on any direction, according to what is independently understood

I get myself out of the grave.  I say this pointing to the same moment as would be the foundation of your saying what you have said.

love this.  nice.  Going to ponder on it a bit more.  I have always said that coming to Earth is an ordinance (from the point of view of the previous life), and that it (coming to Earth) is indeed our baptism requirement.

I like this. Is "to" the same word used?

[Maidservant]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

I like this. Is "to" the same word used?

I think so.  But now I want to double check.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't this line of discussion been about why some women struggle with the temple rather than "I want to change the temple"?

I've told my husband some of the things said here and he said, "would it be so hard to try to consider this from a woman's point of view and say, 'I can see why you would feel or think that?' 

There are some women who will only be happy if it is all changed. Most, that I know, are happy if our feelings are considered and/or the temple is prayerfully pondered over by our leaders. It can truly be amazing what happens for women when they know the are heard and listened to even if nothing else changes.

Yes I could have been kinder, and I acknowledge that.  Sure I could see it from a woman's point of view.

But that was not my reason for commenting.   I see my role here to make people think about what they are saying, not making them feel good about what I see as erroneous thinking.

I naturally want to "fix" things to make them right when they do not work well.   If I am dissatisfied with a theory and how it works, to me, one must adjust the theory so that it works well.

To me, here you have a case of theoretically half of humankind struggling with the way some things are said which theoretically affect their eternal progression.

If what is said is turning people off in the presentation of the endowment, what can be done to fix it?   Doesn't that make sense?

Either we should fix what is said or fix ourselves!!

If what is said is seen as correct and yet it makes us uncomfortable then we need to change ourselves OR change the statement!!   If you read a weight chart and it makes you uncomfortable one can either decide that the weight chart is wrong or that you are wrong and need to make changes.

I just asked my wife (again) about how she feels about that language and she said "I noticed it but it doesn't bother me at all".  I am not quoting her to show how great she is (though I think she IS the greatest thing that ever happened in my life) but my point is IT DOES NOT bother every woman

My wife works in a very demanding job and sometimes has to deal with jerky men in a direct and confrontational way and trust me, can put a man in his place in a second flat.  (Think in terms of kind of like a law enforcement position- that is the closest I can compare it to) so she is no shrinking violet- let me be the first to say!

So complaining about what is said and not having any reason or idea about changing it to make it "better" is just incomprehensible to me.

"It makes me feel like a servant but that's ok, and I have no problem with it"

HUH???

"There there sweetheart, I can see it from your side, but it will never change even though it bothers you" 

Just incomprehensible 

Honestly to me that sounds like a pat on the head and very dismissive with no intent to fix the problem.

And that supports women?

 

[mfbukowski]

No mas.

Edited April 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I could have been kinder, and I acknowledge that.  Sure I could see it from a woman's point of view.

But that was not my reason for commenting.   I see my role here to make people think about what they are saying, not making them feel good about what I see as erroneous thinking.

I naturally want to "fix" things to make them right when they do not work well.   If I am dissatisfied with a theory and how it works, to me, one must adjust the theory so that it works well.

To me, here you have a case of theoretically half of humankind struggling with the way some things are said which theoretically affect their eternal progression.

If what is said is turning people off in the presentation of the endowment, what can be done to fix it?   Doesn't that make sense?

Either we should fix what is said or fix ourselves!!

If what is said is seen as correct and yet it makes us uncomfortable then we need to change ourselves OR change the statement!!   If you read a weight chart and it makes you uncomfortable one can either decide that the weight chart is wrong or that you are wrong and need to make changes.

I just asked my wife (again) about how she feels about that language and she said "I noticed it but it doesn't bother me at all".  I am not quoting her to show how great she is (though I think she IS the greatest thing that ever happened in my life) but my point is IT DOES NOT bother every woman

My wife works in a very demanding job and sometimes has to deal with jerky men in a direct and confrontational way and trust me, can put a man in his place in a second flat.  (Think in terms of kind of like a law enforcement position- that is the closest I can compare it to) so she is no shrinking violet- let me be the first to say!

So complaining about what is said and not having any reason or idea about changing it to make it "better" is just incomprehensible to me.

"It makes me feel like a servant but that's ok, and I have no problem with it"

HUH???

"There there sweetheart, I can see it from your side, but it will never change even though it bothers you" 

Just incomprehensible 

Honestly to me that sounds like a pat on the head and very dismissive with no intent to fix the problem.

And that supports women?

 

Your post reminds me of Elder Zwick in the October 2017 conference: 

"I had my eyes opened to “looking beyond what I could see” while serving as a mission president. A young elder arrived with apprehension in his eyes. As we met in an interview, he said dejectedly, “I want to go home.” I thought to myself, “Well, we can fix this.” I counseled him to work hard and to pray about it for a week and then call me. A week later, almost to the minute, he called. He still wanted to go home. I again counseled him to pray, to work hard, and to call me in a week. In our next interview, things had not changed. He insisted on going home.

"I just wasn’t going to let that happen. I began teaching him about the sacred nature of his call. I encouraged him to “forget [himself] and go to work.”² But no matter what formula I offered, his mind did not change."

-----

I would love that instead of trying to "make people think about what they are saying, not making them feel good about what I see as erroneous thinking" you would consider what he said next:

----

"It finally occurred to me that I might not have the whole picture. It was then that I felt a prompting to ask him the question: “Elder, what is hard for you?” What he said pierced my heart: “President, I can’t read.”

"The wise counsel which I thought was so important for him to hear was not at all relevant to his needs. What he needed most was for me to look beyond my hasty assessment and allow the Spirit to help me understand what was really on this elder’s mind. He needed me to see him correctly and offer a reason to hope. Instead, I acted like a giant demolition wrecking ball. This valiant elder did learn to read and became a very pure disciple of Jesus Christ. He opened my eyes to the Lord’s words: “For man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7)."

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

Your post reminds me of Elder Zwick in the October 2017 conference: 

"I had my eyes opened to “looking beyond what I could see” while serving as a mission president. A young elder arrived with apprehension in his eyes. As we met in an interview, he said dejectedly, “I want to go home.” I thought to myself, “Well, we can fix this.” I counseled him to work hard and to pray about it for a week and then call me. A week later, almost to the minute, he called. He still wanted to go home. I again counseled him to pray, to work hard, and to call me in a week. In our next interview, things had not changed. He insisted on going home.

"I just wasn’t going to let that happen. I began teaching him about the sacred nature of his call. I encouraged him to “forget [himself] and go to work.”² But no matter what formula I offered, his mind did not change."

I would love that instead of trying to "make people think about what they are saying, not making them feel good about what I see as erroneous thinking" you would consider what he said next:

"It finally occurred to me that I might not have the whole picture. It was then that I felt a prompting to ask him the question: “Elder, what is hard for you?” What he said pierced my heart: “President, I can’t read.”

"The wise counsel which I thought was so important for him to hear was not at all relevant to his needs. What he needed most was for me to look beyond my hasty assessment and allow the Spirit to help me understand what was really on this elder’s mind. He needed me to see him correctly and offer a reason to hope. Instead, I acted like a giant demolition wrecking ball. This valiant elder did learn to read and became a very pure disciple of Jesus Christ. He opened my eyes to the Lord’s words: “For man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7)."

 

Good analogy but the Elder knew what his problem was and fixed it.

And this is an apologetics board, not a Bishop's office.

[Rain]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good analogy but the Elder knew what his problem was and fixed it.

And this is an apologetics board, not a Bishop's office.

Are you on this board for purely intellectual reasons or because you want to help people through apologetics.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Are you on this board for purely intellectual reasons or because you want to help people through apologetics.

I do not think that is a fair representation of the way I see it. 

I think that once people fully understand the rational,  philosophical structure of the beliefs taught by the LDS church,  it will help them to understand that having a testimony based on emotion is perfectly rational in the context of religious experience, as long as it is not emotionally conflicted and they are certain of how they see it.

The problem arises when one is conflicted thinking for example "well maybe that experience was from God or maybe not".  THAT question needs to be resolved before it is a "testimony" in my book, but there is no debating it when the individual themselves are certain it was from God.  Faith is based on HOPE for things unseen.  Without a certainty of HOPE one cannot even have faith so structuring a rational reason to HOPE is at the bottom of all of it

That is the way I am seeing the problem- "Well I don't like the idea that women are represented as servants, but I am ok with it".   I don't get that at all.  "It is wrong that women are represented as servants"= is in my view a valid, reasonable  position.  Those who accept that think it is a wrong position for the church to take.

The church is therefore in error for that and that leads to a decision about living with that error or leaving.

They do not want to "have a man between a woman and God".   They do not HOPE that is the case.  They HOPE that is NOT the case.  Hoping it is not the case and being ok with it anyway doesn't make sense to me.  It does not lead to action and faith IS acting on hope!  "Faith is a principle of action"

I have sufficient experience here to know that that my process helps people, and I have had enough positive feedback to prove that to myself.  I am not here to provide emotional support, I am here to support the idea of emotional support as a rational way to make decisions about religious matters, as long as one is not emotionally conflicted about them.

I am here to support the proposition "I know the church is true" as being a rational idea based on emotional testimony- not what to do about those with emotional conflicts about having a testimony, which is what I see in this case.

I think having a conflicted testimony is a good reason to evaluate one's entire position about the church and either accept or leave it.

It's kind of like teaching ABOUT a subject without teaching the subject.   One can for example teach about languages without teaching a specific language like Spanish or tutoring someone in French irregular verbs.  If a person is having trouble with irregular verbs, that has nothing to do with the structure of language itself and the fact that irregular verbs exist, for example.

 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not think that is a fair representation of the way I see it. 

I think that once people fully understand the rational,  philosophical structure of the beliefs taught by the LDS church,  it will help them to understand that having a testimony based on emotion is perfectly rational in the context of religious experience, as long as it is not emotionally conflicted and they are certain of how they see it.

The problem arises when one is conflicted thinking for example "well maybe that experience was from God or maybe not".  THAT question needs to be resolved before it is a "testimony" in my book, but there is no debating it when the individual themselves are certain it was from God.  Faith is based on HOPE for things unseen.  Without a certainty of HOPE one cannot even have faith so structuring a rational reason to HOPE is at the bottom of all of it

That is the way I am seeing the problem- "Well I don't like the idea that women are represented as servants, but I am ok with it".   I don't get that at all.  "It is wrong that women are represented as servants"= is in my view a valid, reasonable  position.  Those who accept that think it is a wrong position for the church to take.

The church is therefore in error for that and that leads to a decision about living with that error or leaving.

They do not want to "have a man between a woman and God".   They do not HOPE that is the case.  They HOPE that is NOT the case.  Hoping it is not the case and being ok with it anyway doesn't make sense to me.  It does not lead to action and faith IS acting on hope!  "Faith is a principle of action"

I have sufficient experience here to know that that my process helps people, and I have had enough positive feedback to prove that to myself.  I am not here to provide emotional support, I am here to support the idea of emotional support as a rational way to make decisions about religious matters, as long as one is not emotionally conflicted about them.

I am here to support the proposition "I know the church is true" as being a rational idea based on emotional testimony- not what to do about those with emotional conflicts about having a testimony, which is what I see in this case.

I think having a conflicted testimony is a good reason to evaluate one's entire position about the church and either accept or leave it.

It's kind of like teaching ABOUT a subject without teaching the subject.   One can for example teach about languages without teaching a specific language like Spanish or tutoring someone in French irregular verbs.  If a person is having trouble with irregular verbs, that has nothing to do with the structure of language itself and the fact that irregular verbs exist, for example.

 

You are reading far more into that than I had in mind. I recognize I am missing a question mark, which I am sorry about, but it was only a question not a representation in any way of how I think you feel. 

 

[Calm]

 

Quote

Well I don't like the idea that women are represented as servants, but I am ok with it". 

If this is regards to what I said, I was simply pointing out there is a history of women as servants and some cultural artifacts of that history even in our society.  There was nothing in what I said that expressed my personal position in a negative way.

It is something present in our society.  We get to deal with it.  I don't feel that way in my personal relationships nor in my experience in the temple, so I don't feel the need to like or dislike it.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

On 4/8/2018 at 3:14 PM, Stargazer said:

And it doesn't have to be about the womenz either. For heaven's sake indeed.  Why can't I say something doctrinally correct (or prove me wrong, Juliann) about the subject at hand without getting the riot act read to me?

SHE is making it about women.  I'M trying to tell her that it isn't all about women, or about HER.  It's about Father's goals with respect to His children.  His goal is the Exaltation of as many of His children as He can obtain.  That exaltation applies only to those who have entered into the sacrament of eternal marriage, and whose marriages have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  

The rest of us, regardless of whether we will be in the two lower levels of the CK or either of the TKs, will be servants of the Most High, worlds without end.  Regardless of our sex.

I'm not talking about menz or womenz.  I'm trying to disabuse her of her misunderstanding.  Is this still permitted?  Or need I forevermore stay out of conversations that verge into this particular subject matter?

Or is the complaint simply over being a servant? That she understands the point already but just doesn't like it? Well, if that'sthe case, then I withdraw from the conversation, because I have nothing to offer in consolation. 

 

Are you talking about me in particular? Because I really don't mind just being an angel, I read that we'll be angels in heaven, I'm good with that. Not too happy about the servant part as far as waiting hand and foot on someone I don't even know and their eating bon and bons or whatever. Not to sound glib, just trying to give you an idea. My wish isn't to be a Goddess, it's actually to be an angel, like it said we are in the Bible. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Are you talking about me in particular? Because I really don't mind just being an angel, I read that we'll be angels in heaven, I'm good with that. Not too happy about the servant part as far as waiting hand and foot on someone I don't even know and their eating bon and bons or whatever. Not to sound glib, just trying to give you an idea. My wish isn't to be a Goddess, it's actually to be an angel, like it said we are in the Bible. 

It's the servant thing, Tacenda.  I got the idea from what you wrote that you were having a problem with unmarried women being servants in the hereafter.  I was just trying to make clear that it wasn't just unmarried women, it was unmarried anyone at all, and since I mentioned unmarried men, Juliann just had to chime in with the "it's not about the menz", as if this was some anti-feminist rant I was on.

But it doesn't say anything in the Bible about people becoming angels, not sure where you get that.  There's this kind of sappy illustration that you see when a person dies they suddenly sprout wings and carry around a harp -- assuming they were goody two shoes in mortality, or something (otherwise it's straight to that other place).  But what is an angel, but a servant?  The word "angel" comes from the Greek word that means "messenger".  So angels are sent to humans to tell them things -- like Gabriel to Mary, Moroni to Joseph Smith, and so on.  The rest of us who aren't exalted aren't necessarily going to entered into the ranks of the angels (how many messengers does Heavenly Father need, anyway?).  But I'm sure Father has a job for us to do, whatever the case.

Nevertheless, gaining servants isn't the point!  He's going to get many, but his intent was something much higher.

Why did Father send us here to be tested in the first place?  To see which of us would be candidates for Eternal Life (meaning the life that God lives), and to do what God does, and to see which of us will not be candidates for it.  Because those who go on to that Eternal LIfe are fulfilling the purpose God expresses in Moses 1:39, which is also spoken of in Psalms 82: 6 "I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High," and in Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ..."  Doesn't the heir inherit all that his or her father have?  The reason I bring this up is this: you should not satisfy yourself with servanthood.  

[Calm]

"since I mentioned unmarried men, Juliann just had to chime in with the "it's not about the menz", as if this was some anti-feminist rant I was on."

Misrepresenting why something is said doesn't create any sense you understood why something was said.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's the servant thing, Tacenda.  I got the idea from what you wrote that you were having a problem with unmarried women being servants in the hereafter.  I was just trying to make clear that it wasn't just unmarried women, it was unmarried anyone at all, and since I mentioned unmarried men, Juliann just had to chime in with the "it's not about the menz", as if this was some anti-feminist rant I was on.

But it doesn't say anything in the Bible about people becoming angels, not sure where you get that.  There's this kind of sappy illustration that you see when a person dies they suddenly sprout wings and carry around a harp -- assuming they were goody two shoes in mortality, or something (otherwise it's straight to that other place).  But what is an angel, but a servant?  The word "angel" comes from the Greek word that means "messenger".  So angels are sent to humans to tell them things -- like Gabriel to Mary, Moroni to Joseph Smith, and so on.  The rest of us who aren't exalted aren't necessarily going to entered into the ranks of the angels (how many messengers does Heavenly Father need, anyway?).  But I'm sure Father has a job for us to do, whatever the case.

Nevertheless, gaining servants isn't the point!  He's going to get many, but his intent was something much higher.

Why did Father send us here to be tested in the first place?  To see which of us would be candidates for Eternal Life (meaning the life that God lives), and to do what God does, and to see which of us will not be candidates for it.  Because those who go on to that Eternal LIfe are fulfilling the purpose God expresses in Moses 1:39, which is also spoken of in Psalms 82: 6 "I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High," and in Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ..."  Doesn't the heir inherit all that his or her father have?  The reason I bring this up is this: you should not satisfy yourself with servanthood.  

Matthew 22:30 English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

[Stargazer]

On 10/04/2018 at 11:02 PM, Tacenda said:

Matthew 22:30 English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Of course.  That is probably the only mention of this in the scriptures.  But "like angels" doesn't say "are angels".

But perhaps that's being too picky.  An unexalted resurrected being who is sent to minister to a mortal is an angel by virtue of his (or her) office of messenger.  An unexalted resurrected being who is sent to perform some other function (such as helping the baseball team, the Los Angeles Angels, win an important game), isn't being a messenger, so not literally an angel, but he or she is just like an angel is form and function.

But getting into minutiae about this is like debating the question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

The most important point I have to make about all this is this: you, Tacenda, and your husband, have the capability of becoming joint-heirs of Christ. Or else Father would not have sent you here at all to experience mortality as a human being.  So try not to sell yourself short.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Stargazer