Bernard Gui Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, jpv said: Right D&C 131 explicitly calls those married in the temple as having entered into a priesthood order. So, the words “man, he, his” used here are generic references to all children of God? “1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. 4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.” Edited March 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui
bluebell Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: So, the words “man, he, his” used here are generic references to all children of God? “1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. 4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.” That seems to be the case.
Bernard Gui Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: That seems to be the case. So, it is not explicit, but inferred?
bluebell Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: So, it is not explicit, but inferred? When it comes to women, the entirety of scriptural theology seems to be inferred and not explicit. If you replace the male pronouns in those scriptures with female ones, it's still all true. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes, but it does establish a revealed pattern of a quorum of twelve that has been followed in three dispensations on three continents. Yes, but that still does not explain the number: Is it symbolic of the Twelve Tribes? At both Qumran (Essenes) and in the Jewish synagogue, there is a council of twelve, with the addition of three Aaronide priests = 15. How did that come about? As with the Seventy, is it alright to have unfilled quorums? When Moses established the Seventy, was it a full quorum? Was St Stephen part of a full quorum of Seventy? The Orthodox Church sees Stephen as an apostle and archdeacon of the Seventy. What does that mean?
Bernard Gui Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, but that still does not explain the number: Is it symbolic of the Twelve Tribes? At both Qumran (Essenes) and in the Jewish synagogue, there is a council of twelve, with the addition of three Aaronide priests = 15. How did that come about? As with the Seventy, is it alright to have unfilled quorums? When Moses established the Seventy, was it a full quorum? Was St Stephen part of a full quorum of Seventy? The Orthodox Church sees Stephen as an apostle and archdeacon of the Seventy. What does that mean? For me, the answers are in the Book of Mormon. Plain and precious, no?
Bernard Gui Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 59 minutes ago, bluebell said: When it comes to women, the entirety of scriptural theology seems to be inferred and not explicit. If you replace the male pronouns in those scriptures with female ones, it's still all true. The poster said it was explicit. I don’t see that.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: For me, the answers are in the Book of Mormon. Plain and precious, no? Why does the BofM only designate them as "disciples"? How many councils of 12 can there be, and at which levels? Does the stake high council count? And how is it that church structures are so malleable or fluid -- as for example the local quorums of seventy (Hugh Nibley was a local seventy), which were done away with. Then too we have general authority seventies, and other seventies now. At one time, we had assistants to the Twelve, but now no longer. If you go back into the history of the church, both modern and ancient, you will see some strong variances. Is it the rule that the church may take whatever form the priesthood requires in order to get the job of salvation done? 1
Calm Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: The poster said it was explicit. I don’t see that. I read it as jpv saying it was explicit they were married.
Calm Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Calm said: I read it as jpv saying it was explicit they were married. Can't edit....explicit in it was referring to those who were married.
Bernard Gui Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Calm said: Can't edit....explicit in it was referring to those who were married. D&C 131 explicitly says "man, he, his." As I read it, "married couples" must be inferred. But we can agree to disagree. Edited March 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 If you believe women should hold the Priesthood and that God is willing to let it happen pray for it. If you are not sure about the latter pray about that too. 2
MustardSeed Posted March 20, 2019 Author Posted March 20, 2019 I believe women should hold A priesthood of sorts and be represented as often as men are. I believe God has a more clear vision of women and our importance than we humans have. I believe that if we made way for God's vision of us, we would see women leading and being represented much much more. That is my opinion. *****. I think men AND women get in the way of that now. It is also my opinion that often when people suggest that women's roles are divine right now, and that nothing needs to change, that this is narrow thinking . I believe that YES women "are" divine right now, and very valuable. But I do not believe that women are "valued" and I don't think that their roles are divine. I also think motherhood is a sacred calling and should be held in higher esteem than it is. Fact is, we don't honor it in the way humans honor other roles. I think God sees us much differently than we see ourselves and the things we say to ourselves and each other to justify the way we operate with the sexes are pretty.....lame. 2
changed Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I believe women should hold A priesthood of sorts and be represented as often as men are. I believe God has a more clear vision of women and our importance than we humans have. I believe that if we made way for God's vision of us, we would see women leading and being represented much much more. That is my opinion. *****. I think men AND women get in the way of that now. It is also my opinion that often when people suggest that women's roles are divine right now, and that nothing needs to change, that this is narrow thinking . I believe that YES women "are" divine right now, and very valuable. But I do not believe that women are "valued" and I don't think that their roles are divine. I also think motherhood is a sacred calling and should be held in higher esteem than it is. Fact is, we don't honor it in the way humans honor other roles. I think God sees us much differently than we see ourselves and the things we say to ourselves and each other to justify the way we operate with the sexes are pretty.....lame. 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. ...a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.... we live in a fallen world. 1
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, changed said: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. ...a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.... we live in a fallen world. Wow, put that way, it's no wonder there are abuses of women out there. This is the reason I struggle to read my scriptures. Edited March 20, 2019 by Tacenda
pogi Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, MustardSeed said: I also think motherhood is a sacred calling and should be held in higher esteem than it is. Fact is, we don't honor it in the way humans honor other roles. My experience and perspective in the church is very different. Motherhood has always been put an a pedestal in our church far above all other roles, responsibilities, and callings in mortality. From our prophet: Quote During my professional career as a doctor of medicine, I was occasionally asked why I chose to do that difficult work. I responded with my opinion that the highest and noblest work in this life is that of a mother. Since that option was not available to me, I thought that caring for the sick might come close. I tried to care for my patients as compassionately and competently as mother cared for me. (Russel M. Nelson) A First Presidency message: Quote Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind. It places her who honors its holy calling and service next to the angels." (Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," (1965–75), 6:178.) More notable snippets: Quote "It is important for you Latter-day Saint women to understand that the Lord holds motherhood and mothers sacred and in the highest esteem." (Kimball) Quote "When the real history of mankind is fully disclosed, will it feature the echoes of gunfire or the shaping sound of lullabies? The great armistices made by military men or the peacemaking of women in homes and in neighborhoods? Will what happened in cradles and kitchens prove to be more controlling than what happened in congresses?" (Maxwell) Quote “Motherhood is the greatest potential influence either for good or ill in human life. The mother's image is the first that stamps itself on the unwritten page of the young child's mind. It is her caress that first awakens a sense of security; her kiss, the first realization of affection; her sympathy and tenderness, the first assurance that there is love in the world.” (McKay) Quote “The greatest job that any mother will ever do will be in nurturing, teaching, lifting, encouraging and rearing her children in righteousness and truth. None other can adequately take her place.” (Hinckely) These kind of messages are endless in our church. It seems to be taught regularly that the role of a mother is higher and nobler than any other role in this life. It was so regularly taught that it became emotionally difficult for me and my wife to hear as we struggled through infertility. In fact, I would venture to say that our leaders might need to scale it back a little, While I agree with the sentiment, we need to be very careful in our delivery and message. Here is one example of a comment that can be very hard for women struggling with infertility to hear (we heard this all the time): Quote May I say to mothers collectively, in the name of the Lord, you are magnificent. You are doing terrifically well. The very fact that you have been given such a responsibility is everlasting evidence of the trust your Father in Heaven has in you. (Holland) While the message is well intentioned, the underlying conclusion is that the Lord doesn't trust those with infertility. Or, that he trusts teenage, drug addict, single mothers more than me... Perhaps we need to rethink that message. 2
Calm Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) I think motherhood has the potential to be divine. But there is nothing divine about a crackhead who gets raped by her dealer in exchange for drugs and ignores her pregnancy and dumps the baby as soon as it is born...and that is the reality of motherhood for some unfortunately. To me, that is biology, not divinity Now the mother who cherished her pregnancy, providing the best she can both before and after birth...that may indeed be divine. But a father can do the same, so in my view if motherhood can be divine, so can fatherhood. And women and men who act as the hands of God in caring for others, whether children, adults, or seniors...or even what we label Nature....can be divine in the same way. Edited March 20, 2019 by Calm
Calm Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, TheRedHen said: So you're not happy unless you're in charge? Is that what I read in your comment? I'm quite happy to let others take the burden of leadership. I read in her comment she would prefer seeing women truly side by side with men
SouthernMo Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: How did that come about? Two words: Brigham Young Whether one agrees with it or not is beside the point, but we look to him as the one who determined the current structure of our apostolic leadership.
SouthernMo Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: The poster said it was explicit. I don’t see that. Do you apply that same rule of explicit-ness to understand all instances in scripture where ‘man’ is stated?
carbon dioxide Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 On 3/19/2019 at 2:10 PM, SouthernMo said: So by your logic, Heavenly Father does not want to maximize the number of women in the Celestial Kingdom? How is the idea that God cares more about saving his sons not a slight to women? Or are you being sarcastic? Perhaps women already have an advantage of going to the CK without the priesthood. The priesthood for the men simply is to make us more equal to the women.
let’s roll Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Is equality a divine goal or a divine measure? It seems to me collaboration is a better description of the divine goal and “oneness” a better description of a divine measure. Is our drive for equality a precursor for collaboration and oneness or a distraction?
Calm Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 43 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Perhaps women already have an advantage of going to the CK without the priesthood. The priesthood for the men simply is to make us more equal to the women. Why would they? Looking at men and women who are not members, is there any evidence that any random woman is better than any random man? And given that most men are given the Priesthood long after death, what advantage would that give?
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, SouthernMo said: Two words: Brigham Young Whether one agrees with it or not is beside the point, but we look to him as the one who determined the current structure of our apostolic leadership. Ugh
Teancum Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 On 3/17/2019 at 9:51 PM, MustardSeed said: ...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? Why not have women as apostles? Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? Or another reason? I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture, I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one). I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. Many non LDS Christian Theologians argue that their were women apostles and leaders in the early Christian Church.
Recommended Posts