Women, Men, and Priesthood

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And it's there.  In the text. 

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

It doesn't?

In the end, membership and activity in the Church is a voluntary thing.  The Church and its teachings have as much or as little "room" as the individual is willing to give.  

That is a subjective determination, best left to the individuals and the Lord.  In other words, it seems like there is plenty of room for parents to make "individual adaptation{s}."

Years ago I had a co-worker who was a member of the Church.  She returned to work only two weeks or so after having given birth via C-Section.  In talking with her, she noted that she loved her children, but she strongly disliked being a stay-at-home mother, and that she couldn't wait to get back to work.

I said nothing to correct or criticize her.  She wasn't looking for my approval/disapproval, or advice, so I didn't offer either.  I figured such a decision was hers to make, and I lacked any sort of stewardship or responsibility for her.  

I was, an am, quite open to the possibility that "circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation" to the otherwise generally sound principles set forth in the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's great for her. But I wasn't like her even if I wish I was.

When my first was born, I lost a critical amount of blood, enough for my OB to offer me a transfusion, not enough for him to insist on it. I refused, because transfusions were for people who needed them, and I felt "fine," because new moms are supposed to be tired. I could show you my photo with my baby, she pink and me white as the sheet. I was most definitely not fine but I thought it was normal. Similarly, as an accomplished student with enormous aptitude who was miserable staying at home, caveats like that did not apply to me, they were for people who needed them, being miserable wasn't enough to need an exception. 

So the caveat does not allow for flexibility, only exceptions. There's a difference between the two concepts.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That was sarcasm.

Humor can sometimes be painfully revealing!

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

 

So the caveat does not allow for flexibility, only exceptions. There's a difference between the two concepts.

I don't think that's a fact, but a matter of personal perception/interpretation.  I know a lot of women who do see the Proc. as allowing for flexibility when it comes to women working outside of the home.  I can appreciate that you don't see it but others interpreted it differently.   

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yup. I hear there's a Mother, and I know there are human beings who yearn for Her voice.

I have no doubt we have a Mother in Heaven. No doubt whatsoever. Until she is revealed we will have to deal with the Father and the Son.

Quote

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

November 1909  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Why take pot shots instead of addressing the scriptures, information, and explanations I have brought up? Facilely rejecting them as the tainted products of patriarchy doesn't accomplish much.

We could have a productive discussion. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that's a fact, but a matter of personal perception/interpretation.  I know a lot of women who do see the Proc. as allowing for flexibility when it comes to women working outside of the home.  I can appreciate that you don't see it but others interpreted it differently.   

It is written as a caveat, not as a choice between equally acceptable goods.

[juliann]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I interpret her saying he didn’t have the priesthood of that era.

He won’t have been seen by others as ordained as a priest by their law. 

In a sense, he was the priesthood. The point is that he didn't have 21st century ordained priesthood, that is a fairly recent development that wasn't even present at the beginnings of Mormonism.  We just like to shove it back into ancient times, it gives men greater claim to it. 

But women can operate under this same priesthood, just like Christ did. I think that is the point. It is a bit like Pres. Oaks laid out a few years ago. And it ties in with Stapley's "cosmological" priesthood in the beginnings before priesthood became a calling or ordination. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's great for her. But I wasn't like her even if I wish I was.

When my first was born, I lost a critical amount of blood, enough for my OB to offer me a transfusion, not enough for him to insist on it. I refused, because transfusions were for people who needed them, and I felt "fine," because new moms are supposed to be tired. I could show you my photo with my baby, she pink and me white as the sheet. I was most definitely not fine but I thought it was normal. Similarly, as an accomplished student with enormous aptitude who was miserable staying at home, caveats like that did not apply to me, they were for people who needed them, being miserable wasn't enough to need an exception. 

So the caveat does not allow for flexibility, only exceptions. There's a difference between the two concepts.

With respect, I disagree.

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I see all sorts of "flexibility" in that statement.

I have a friend who was the primary breadwinner for most of her marriage.  As I recall, her husband was ill for an extended period of time, which commenced her breadwinning.  By the time he returned to good health, his wife, my friend, was well into her career and was doing quite well at it.  So they stayed with it.  He was the stay-at-home parent and she worked outside the home.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Humor can sometimes be painfully revealing!

Not in this case.

In your attempt to blame the male “filter” for not getting revelation you want I think yo distort and exaggerate the differences between genders to try to explain it (tacitly blaming the apostles). Men and women are far more alike then they are different.

Your hypothesis would also, if you are being completely fair on this, have to acknowledge that your revelatory “filter” is equally flawed due to your gender and cannot be trusted. It is a rabbit hole it makes no sense to go down.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no doubt we have a Mother in Heaven. No doubt whatsoever. Until she is revealed we will have to deal with the Father and the Son.

Why take pot shots instead of address the scriptures, information, and explanations I have brought up? Facilely rejecting them as the tainted products of patriarchy doesn't accomplish much.

We could have a productive discussion. 

I have not attempted any pot shots. But I do very deliberately choose to be dismissive of products of patriarchy because there is a point in it: what if Mother is not silent at all? Maybe caution and reverence would compel one to be skeptical of claims that she's not been revealed and to be mindful of the plausibility that female spokespeople would be more likely to hear Her, especially when male spokespeople for the Hims are so prolific?

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not in this case.

In your attempt to blame the male “filter” for not getting revelation you want I think yo distort and exaggerate the differences between genders to try to explain it (tacitly blaming the apostles). Men and women are far more alike then they are different.

Your hypothesis would also, if you are being completely fair on this, have to acknowledge that your revelatory “filter” is equally flawed due to your gender and cannot be trusted. It is a rabbit hole it makes no sense to go down.

Of course females are flawed, but the beauty of diversity means we might also have more various successes along with the multiplying kinds of flaws, and can be better at correcting each other.

[Nofear]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe people are just shutting Her out?

I suspect a few reasons:

• Heavenly Father and Mother are perfectly united. However, we mortals would put them in twain where no division exists. Much as children would ask one parent something and if they didn't like the response, they would go to the other parent to see if they might get a different answer. Our perfect Heavenly Parents have no such division. Her response to our prayers would be no different than his response to our prayers.
• She would be a stumbling block to many joining the Church. So, we continue in the habit and language that is at least modestly comfortable to those coming. This reason, however, is probably rapidly shrinking in relevance.

There may be others that I don't know of. But what I do know is that her absence from public discourse is not some conspiracy of the patriarchy of the Brethren to withhold her from us. No man can come between me and my God/Heavenly Parents and they don't.

I am quite content with the idea that our Omniscient Mother in Heaven hears my prayers just as the Father does. And that whatever response I get to my prayers can be thought of as being from either Parent. I still say, "Heavenly Father" in my prayers so as not to be a stumbling block to other members but I am under no idea but that both are aware of and responsive to my prayers.

And if you desire to understand Heavenly Mother more, read John 14:9 and simply replace Father with Mother.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not attempted any pot shots.

Really?

Quote

Quote

Not so.  Every member is entitled to revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Every human being, not just every member. However, all revelation for the entire church comes through a mortal and male filter. 

"A mortal and male filter" is not a potshot? 

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But I do very deliberately choose to be dismissive of products of patriarchy because there is a point in it: what if Mother is not silent at all?

I'm not sure what this means.  Are you attempting to pit Heavenly Mother against the prophets and apostles?

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe caution and reverence would compel one to be skeptical of claims that she's not been revealed and to be mindful of the plausibility that female spokespeople would be more likely to hear Her, especially when male spokespeople for the Hims are so prolific?

This seems like an exercise in rationalization.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not attempted any pot shots. But I do very deliberately choose to be dismissive of products of patriarchy because there is a point in it: what if Mother is not silent at all? Maybe caution and reverence would compel one to be skeptical of claims that she's not been revealed and to be mindful of the plausibility that female spokespeople would be more likely to hear Her, especially when male spokespeople for the Hims are so prolific?

But what would that make the many female spokespeople for Him? Charlatans?

And why is that plausible? To be a God is to amplify gender but also to reach understanding of the opposite. The Father understands his daughters. The Mother understands her sons. You focus almost exclusively on what divides us as if it is a fundamental law of the Universe.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course females are flawed, but the beauty of diversity means we might also have more various successes along with the multiplying kinds of flaws, and can be better at correcting each other.

What?

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I see all sorts of "flexibility" in that statement.

I have a friend who was the primary breadwinner for most of her marriage.  As I recall, her husband was ill for an extended period of time, which commenced her breadwinning.  By the time he returned to good health, his wife, my friend, was well into her career and was doing quite well at it.  So they stayed with it.  He was the stay-at-home parent and she worked outside the home.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's great for them! I am really happy for people who have managed to adapt to the prescriptions of the church, for their betterment.

I remember that my parents, without actually being explicit, were disappointed that I dove headlong into marriage and motherhood after my academic success. I saw their attitude as a departure from what I'd learned and trusted in the church, to embrace the gender roles first as the primary step. There was no primary alternative then, and neither is there in the proclamation.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The proclamation prescribes gender based roles. If you have an idea of how this is consistent with equality, feel free to share that.

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

You really want to debate this?

"Other circumstances" would include consensual adults making decisions about who works and who stays with the kids, and who is the "protector".   And as we all know, who actually "presides" in the family is often a matter of practicality unless one party exercises unrighteous dominion.  Which is clearly prohibited.  How is unrighteous dominion compatible with "presiding"?   

Amen to the (leadership role) of that (person), whatever the gender.

Obviously the church feels that equality is possible in this context and note the highlighted sections.  What we have is a semantic debate about the meaning of "equality".  Have fun with that.

There is no criteria for "equality" that I know of that prohibits grown adults from choosing their lifestyles- do you really want to maintain that?  It becomes a semantic problem.  Do you really want to debate what "equality" means for people with different natural abilities? 

Do you want to maintain that men should be able to carry babies within their bodies, thereby making gay marriage "unequal" to heterosexual marriage?

Do you really want to maintain that "equality" PROHIBITS consensual adults from making their own decisions about their marital life?

If you do not accept the Proclamation you are not obliged to follow it.  

According to your logic, men and women can never be "equal" because of the difference in their bodies.

Obviously that is false.  Equality does not demand that men be able to have babies or nurse them as needed.

Obviously it is the opinion of millions who follow the proclamation that it does NOT stand for "inequality" or else the document would be self- contradictory

I have never seen that argued and cannot see how such an argument would hold up.

Quote

If you have an idea of how this is consistent  inconsistent with equality, feel free to share that.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?

"A mortal and male filter" is not a potshot? 

I'm not sure what this means.  Are you attempting to pit Heavenly Mother against the prophets and apostles?

This seems like an exercise in rationalization.

Thanks,

-Smac

The filters being male is the point, not an insult. 

[Nofear]

This post is a bit judgmental because I feel quite strongly about Heavenly Mother. So many, men and women, who cry and long for her are guilty of idolatry. They have imagined an "unknown God" and worship this creature of their own creation. She is not of our creation, but we of her creation. Through the Savior we can come to know her. Until the membership of the Church is ready is ready to worship her in the same spirit and truth in which we worship the Father, and not the idol, she will continue to be veiled except to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But what would that make the many female spokespeople for Him? Charlatans?

And why is that plausible? To be a God is to amplify gender but also to reach understanding of the opposite. The Father understands his daughters. The Mother understands her sons. You focus almost exclusively on what divides us as if it is a fundamental law of the Universe.

I only focus on the lack of female representation because it is extremely unbalanced. 

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

That's great for them! I am really happy for people who have managed to adapt to the prescriptions of the church, for their betterment.

I remember that my parents, without actually being explicit, were disappointed that I dove headlong into marriage and motherhood after my academic success. I saw their attitude as a departure from what I'd learned and trusted in the church, to embrace the gender roles first as the primary step. There was no primary alternative then, and neither is there in the proclamation.

Yes, there is an "alternative" in the Proclamation: "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You really want to debate this?

Obviously the church feels that equality is possible in this context and note the highlighted sections.

There is no criteria for "equality" that I know of that prohibits grown adults from choosing their lifestyles- do you really want to maintain that?  It becomes a semantic problem.  Do you really want to debate what "equality" means for people with different natural abilities? 

Do you want to maintain that men should be able to carry babies within their bodies, thereby making gay marriage "unequal" to heterosexual marriage?

Do you really want to maintain that "equality" PROHIBITS consensual adults from making their own decisions about their marital life?

If you do not accept the Proclamation you are not obliged to follow it.  

 

 

So do you have an idea of how gender-based roles *prescribed by the church* are consistent with equality? Please go ahead and share.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The filters being male is the point, not an insult. 

Okay.  I accept that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

So do you have an idea of how gender-based roles *prescribed by the church* are consistent with equality? Please go ahead and share.

• 1 Corinthians 12.
• 2 Nephi 26:33.
• Moroni 8:17.
• Ephesians 4.

I have yet to see you meaningfully interact with these.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

Just now, smac97 said:

Yes, there is an "alternative" in the Proclamation: "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That is not a primary choice. It is a secondary choice made necessary by disability, death, or other circumstances.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I accept that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I love men. My favourite dad is a man, so is my favourite husband!