If Jesus Christ was so radical, why not buck the system and....

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

A true follower of Christ wouldn't care.  

And yet the Father dictates that exaltation occurs only when side by side, man with the woman, woman with the man. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Do you apply that same rule of explicit-ness to understand all instances in scripture where ‘man’ is stated?

Should I? Do you?

[MustardSeed]

11 hours ago, TheRedHen said:

A true follower of Christ wouldn't care.  

This statement sounds pretty twisted, suggestive and defensive, to me.  Not going to play. 

 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, TheRedHen said:

A true follower of Christ wouldn't care.  

As a true follower of Christ, I disagree.   

[SouthernMo]

On 3/20/2019 at 4:42 PM, 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.

You see how your position is sexist, right? God made women better than men, so he had to give men the priesthood?

Baffling...

[SouthernMo]

On 3/20/2019 at 10:00 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Should I? Do you?

Weak reply.

Share your position and ideas instead of deflecting.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

You see how your position is sexist, right? God made women better than men, so he had to give men the priesthood?

Baffling...

This is what my mom thought, minus that women were better, just that they could give birth to a child, she thought the men needed something as miraculous I guess. This was her reasoning. Without knowing it, I think my mom might have been struggling with the reasons for the church not agreeing to the ERA and was a closet feminist maybe. I just remember her saying what she said out of the blue to me when I was a teen. 

[let’s roll]

Perhaps being one in the way Deity intends isn’t the same as being equal in the way the world views equality.

I would expect Deity to exert all its efforts in moving mortals toward being one in the way they intend and be concerned about equality only if, and when, that concept intersects with being one.

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?

Edited March 22, 2019 by let’s roll
Expand thought

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Weak reply.

Share your position and ideas instead of deflecting.

Irrelevant question to the point I was making. No need for further explanation or rancor.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Irrelevant question to the point I was making. No need for further explanation or rancor.

Perhaps, but your point did not come across.  Still unsure whether you believe any time the scriptures use the word man that the context excludes women.

I think you should have a position since you rejected another’s position - lest you be perceived as someone who only tears down ideas without having one’s own.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps, but your point did not come across.  Still unsure whether you believe any time the scriptures use the word man that the context excludes women.

I think you should have a position since you rejected another’s position - lest you be perceived as someone who only tears down ideas without having one’s own.

It's a meaningless question, but I'll indulge.

Like when a man was lowered through the ceiling and Jesus healed him? Or "a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither

shall a man put on a woman's garment...."? Or "And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment-seat, there was a man 

brought before him to be judged, a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength"?

Or like when God created a man and then he created a woman.  Or do you mean like "We believe men will be

punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression"? Or when Jesus is called the Son of Man? Or he is the light that

"lighteth every man that comes into the world?"

Context is everything.

JPV said,

Quote

D&C 131 explicitly calls those married in the temple as having entered into a priesthood order.

D&C 131 says, 

Quote

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.

5 (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purereyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

I did not reject another's position, I simply disagreed. It is not explicit ("fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity, leaving no question as to meaning or intent"), but rather it is implicit or inferred (capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed") that man means man and woman or married couple. That's what I think and that is what I said earlier, now repeating myself. Feel free to disagree.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/18/2019 at 10:20 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the current president of UVU is a woman.  Could we ever imagine a woman being pres of BYU?  To me that should go without saying, but I have my doubts that it will happen.

If the lack of female leadership at any of the BYUs or at LDSBC is a result of an affirmative decision by the Church Board of Education to exclude women from those roles, I have to wonder why similar misogynistic attitudes haven't spread to the Utah Board of Regents, which is responsible for selecting the leaders of all of Utah's institutions of higher education.  After all, it would surprise me if, since Latter-day Saints are well represented in other organs of state (such as the Utah Legislature; it's not derisively called the "Churchislature" for nothing ) a large number of Regents were not also members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

And before you remind me that it would be illegal for a state institution such as the Board of Regents to discriminate against women, and tell me that, if only I'd gone to law school, surely, I would know that,   yes, I am aware that discrimination on the basis of sex by state institutions is illegal under federal law, but that doesn't mean it never happens: It simply means that the parties responsible for it seldom are stupid enough to leave smoking-gun trails of e-mails in their wake explicitly stating that Ms./Mrs./Dr./Prof. X was not hired or promoted because (Gasp! ) she's a woman.

If the Regents are supposed to be taking their cues from an allegedly-sexist Church Board of Education, they're doing a horrible job of it.  It turns out that President Tuminez isn't the exception; she's the rule.  That is to say, Utah Valley University, along with a majority of the state's institutions of higher learning, are led by women, viz: Presidents Cockett (Utah State University), Dobkin (Westminster College), Huftalin (Salt Lake Community College), and Watkins (University of Utah), respectively.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the lack of female leadership at any of the BYUs or at LDSBC is a result of an affirmative decision by the Church Board of Education to exclude women from those roles, I have to wonder why similar misogynistic attitudes haven't spread to the Utah Board of Regents, which is responsible for selecting the leaders of all of Utah's institutions of higher education.  After all, it would surprise me if, since Latter-day Saints are well represented in other organs of state (such as the Utah Legislature; it's not derisively called the "Churchislature" for nothing ) a large number of Regents were not also members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

And before you remind me that it would be illegal for a state institution such as the Board of Regents to discriminate against women, and tell me that, if only I'd gone to law school, surely, I would know that,   yes, I am aware that discrimination on the basis of sex by state institutions is illegal under federal law, but that doesn't mean it never happens: It simply means that the parties responsible for it seldom are stupid enough to leave smoking-gun trails of e-mails in their wake explicitly stating that Ms./Mrs./Dr./Prof. X was not hired or promoted because (Gasp! ) she's a woman.

If the Regents are supposed to be taking their cues from an allegedly-sexist Church Board of Education, they're doing a horrible job of it.  It turns out that President Tuminez isn't the exception; she's the rule.  That is to say, Utah Valley University, along with a majority of the state's institutions of higher learning, are led by women, viz: Presidents Cockett (Utah State University), Dobkin (Westminster College), Huftalin (Salt Lake Community College), and Watkins (University of Utah), respectively.

You seem to be confusing state and private institutions of higher learning.  A state board of regents has no jurisdiction over private schools, such as BYU, Westminster College, etc.,  and they do not have to follow state guidelines in hiring.  I was commenting on the likelihood of women holding high positions at BYU, which is a very legitimate question.

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You seem to be confusing state and private institutions of higher learning.  A state board of regents has no jurisdiction over private schools, such as BYU, Westminster College, etc.,  and they do not have to follow state guidelines in hiring.  I was commenting on the likelihood of women holding high positions at BYU, which is a very legitimate question.

No, I'm not confusing state and private institutions of higher learning, Robert, nor am I attempting to delegitimize your question.  Perhaps if you reread my post (for comprehension, this time) you might catch where I said that, since there's relatively little doubt that a good portion of Regents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if the non-appointment of women to (the) top post(s) at BYU or at other institutions sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is motivated by simple sexism within the Board of Trustees at BYU or within the Church Board of Education, why those Latter-day Saints haven't gotten the memo that they're supposed to be following the Brethren's (sexist!   ) lead.

At times, attempting to dialogue with you can be exhausting: most of the most brilliant people I know aren't necessarily worried about advertising their brilliance to their interlocutors; they're secure enough in their possession of knowledge and wisdom that they don't feel the need to look down their noses at, or to talk down to, anyone.  My attempts to dialogue with you have proven that rule, for the opposite reason: There's no doubt that you know a great deal about a great many things, and have forgotten more about many things than I'll ever know.  The only question I have is, since that's the case, why are you so insecure in the possession of all of that knowledge?

I agree with you: I'm all for qualified women ascending to top posts at any of the state's institutions of higher learning.  If this is how you treat people who agree with you . . .  

Stop making it personal.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, I'm not confusing state and private institutions of higher learning, Robert, nor am I attempting to delegitimize your question.  Perhaps if you reread my post (for comprehension, this time) you might catch where I said that, since there's relatively little doubt that a good portion of Regents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if the non-appointment of women to (the) top post(s) at BYU or at other institutions sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is motivated by simple sexism within the Board of Trustees at BYU or within the Church Board of Education, why those Latter-day Saints haven't gotten the memo that they're supposed to be following the Brethren's (sexist!   ) lead.

At times, attempting to dialogue with you can be exhausting: most of the most brilliant people I know aren't necessarily worried about advertising their brilliance to their interlocutors; they're secure enough in their possession of knowledge and wisdom that they don't feel the need to look down their noses at, or to talk down to, anyone.  My attempts to dialogue with you have proven that rule, for the opposite reason: There's no doubt that you know a great deal about a great many things, and have forgotten more about many things than I'll ever know.  The only question I have is, since that's the case, why are you so insecure in the possession of all of that knowledge?

I agree with you: I'm all for qualified women ascending to top posts at any of the state's institutions of higher learning.  If this is how you treat people who agree with you . . .   🤦‍♂️

Attacking me personally doesn't really deal with the question I was addressing, and I did not suggest that you do not have an enlightened view of the problem, so you were off base on both counts.  I raised a question solely and only about BYU, which is part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I did not suggest that the Board of Trustees (the Brethren ans some others) was directly making all decisions on who the dept heads, deans, and top admin were, but I have noticed a strong tendency to appoint men to those jobs, when it  might be better for a woman to have been appointed.  This may or may not be as a result of Church-related habits of not having women in leading positions.

I prefer merit-based appointments, regardless of whose feelings may be hurt.  That is not an attack on you, and it mystifies me that you take it so personally.

[SouthernMo]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's a meaningless question, but I'll indulge.

Like when a man was lowered through the ceiling and Jesus healed him? Or "a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither

shall a man put on a woman's garment...."? Or "And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment-seat, there was a man 

brought before him to be judged, a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength"?

Or like when God created a man and then he created a woman.  Or do you mean like "We believe men will be

punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression"? Or when Jesus is called the Son of Man? Or he is the light that

"lighteth every man that comes into the world?"

Context is everything.

JPV said,

D&C 131 says, 

I did not reject another's position, I simply disagreed. It is not explicit ("fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity, leaving no question as to meaning or intent"), but rather it is implicit or inferred (capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed") that man means man and woman or married couple. That's what I think and that is what I said earlier, now repeating myself. Feel free to disagree.

Thank you. Verse 6 is noteworthy to me.

Do you see this literally?  Man cannot be saved in ignorance (but a woman can?). 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Thank you. Verse 6 is noteworthy to me.

Do you see this literally?  Man cannot be saved in ignorance (but a woman can?). 

Context is everything.

Quote

From Joseph Smith's History...

Tuesday, May 16, 1943.—At eleven o'clock, with George Miller, William Clayton, Eliza and Lydia Partridge and J. M. Smith, I started for Carthage where we tarried about half-an-hour conversing with different individuals, when we started for Ramus; arrived about half-past three, p.m., and stayed at William G. Perkins for the evening; then went to Benjamin F. Johnson's with William Clayton to sleep. Before retiring, I gave Brother and Sister Johnson some instructions on the priesthood; and putting my hand on the knee of William Clayton, I said:

Your life is hid with Christ in God, and so are many others. Nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent you from inheriting eternal life for you are sealed up by the power of the Priesthood unto eternal life, having taken the step necessary for that purpose. Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory. The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood, or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgment in the flesh, and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of Satan until the day of the Lord Jesus. 

The way I know in whom to confide—God tells me in whom I may place confidence.

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 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;] and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom: he cannot have an increase." [Now D&C 131:1-4] ...

Wednesday, 17.—Partook of breakfast at Brother Perkins'; after which we took a pleasure ride through Fountain Green.

At ten a.m. preached from 2nd Peter, 1st chapter and showed that knowledge is power; and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power.

Salvation means a man's being placed beyond the power of all his enemies.

The more sure word of prophecy means a man's knowing that he is sealed up into eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the holy priesthood. It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. [Now D&C 131:5-6]

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[jpv]

On 3/19/2019 at 4:02 PM, 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.”

Is your interpretation that in a sealing only the male enters into "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage"?

[jpv]

On 3/19/2019 at 11:19 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, "apostle" does mean all that (cf. angel "messenger").  All the more reason to be skeptical that we actually know how apostles were chosen (casting lots), what their responsibilities were, and whether they were exclusively a priesthood function.  Likewise, we have female prophets in both OT and NT, and Paul even approves of women prophesying (1 Cor 11:5; cf. Acts 2:17-18, 21:19).  In 1 Tim 2:9-15, Paul is giving his personal opinion, which he puts in the 1st person.  In writing his epistles, Paul was likely unaware that his work would become canonized Scripture.  Instead he was engaged in ordinary pastoral work.  Even today, apostles express their personal opinions on a regular basis, much of it culture-based.

Most LDS members and traditional Christians would likely echo this view, but it is not at all clear that this is the correct view.

It's a very likely interpretation that Junia is an apostle. However, it's quite possible in that time the word apostle, literally "one sent forth" has more in common with being set apart as a missionary than Priesthood hierarchy.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, jpv said:

Is your interpretation that in a sealing only the male enters into "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage"?

I disagree with the statement that it is explicit in D&C 131. It is not. It requires further explanation. See the quote from Joseph Smith’s history that I provided above. Further discussion may necessitate revealing temple content.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui