Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Will There Be Any Women in Perdition?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Not necessarily.  That point of view assumes that God had no plan to ever allow Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit.  

There is also the alternate view that God always intended for them to partake of the fruit, they just did so prematurely.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

In the LDS account of the Garden of Eden narrative, obedience to God would also have frustrated God's plan.

Showing that perhaps this world is not like other worlds and that other worlds did not follow this path. Lucifer thought he was thwarting the plan by introducing the Fall prematurely but this was not the normal plan.

Link to comment

I have no reason to suspect that women cannot fall to Perdition. Presumably it has the same requirements and would require the same level of fall.

As to spirits being genderless I doubt it. It is more that it will matter less in Outer Darkness. To be exalted is to be fully human and fully male or female. As you go down the kingdoms they are less fully human until you get to Outer Darkness you get to those sent for a place not intended for humanity at all. They degenerate and become less to the point that having once been male or female is probably little more than a memory. Meanwhile the gods and goddesses exemplify everything about their gender and in union find perfection.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, juliann said:

As an aside, I'm getting a real chuckle over the sudden eagerness to equate "men" with "women" when that distinction is held so close to the heart when it comes to priesthood.   LOL

The power of God (priesthood) is manifest equally through the genders' varied forms of expression.

Link to comment

I dunno, :unknw: but there is this bit, although I can't be too specific for obvious reasons:

"Brethren, you have been [mmmfff-mmff-ffmm] and [mff-mmm-mffmfff] from the [mfff-fff-mmfff-mmfff-mmfff-mfff] of [mffff-mffff-mfff], or that through your [mff-mfff-mfff] you may [mfff-mffff-mfff] from the [mfff-fff-mmfff-mmfff-mmfff-mfff] of [mffff-mffff-mfff].  Sisters, you have been [mffff-mmmfff-mfff] from the [mffff-mffmmff-mffff-mfff-mffff]."

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that!" ;) :D 

Link to comment
On 6/19/2020 at 1:29 PM, CV75 said:

If it is not good that man should alone, then it would be desirable to the man condemned to Perdition to be alone. So, it makes sense that he not be alone, and it also makes sense that the females would not enjoy the company either.

Well, let's ask ourselves how man SoPs there will be.  And then ask ourselves, will they all be housed together in the same apartment building? Will they form social clubs, meet at the pub once a week to play skittles together?

Or will they be held in solitary confinement?

Probably the latter.

Not that I know.

Link to comment

Wrote a big block of text with some linguistic technical terms and some German language examples of how certain nouns are male and females regardless of the sex of the thing referred to, but I couldn't get the site to accept it without 403 Forbidden every time.  So I give up.

But "man" and "son" are, in this context, almost certainly generic and refer to human, not human of a particular sex.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Wrote a big block of text with some linguistic technical terms and some German language examples of how certain nouns are male and females regardless of the sex of the thing referred to, but I couldn't get the site to accept it without 403 Forbidden every time.  So I give up.

But "man" and "son" are, in this context, almost certainly generic and refer to human, not human of a particular sex.

I think linguistically might not be the best approach to this question.  It seems to me more theological.  All the theories against female perdition don't rely on the usage of the word Son.

Link to comment
On 6/19/2020 at 8:23 AM, pcarthew said:

I think that there is great insight to what you are saying.  I also believe that women hold a special place in the heavens because of the uniqueness of how they bear children.  It is with great travail that women bring mortal life in too being.  It is generally through much sickness, suffering and agony they endure that mankind might have a mortal, temporal existence. So this creates the  most unique of sacred relationships between Christ and Women.  Women bear the human race into mortality and Christ bears the human race into immortality through greater suffering, pain and torment.  It is a unique relationship many will not understand until the next life.  The reverence that the generations and nations will show to our sisters in the next life will be hard to imagine from our mortal perspective.  God's work is frustrated with out a willingness from women to suffer often nigh unto death to bring about life.  So as a mother bears children one by one into mortality, our Saviours bears us one by one into immortality.  It is one of the most powerful and beautiful relationships in the universe.  It is a mission and responsibility as great as the priesthood. Without our Mothers the priesthood has no use or purpose.  Perhaps that uniqueness of the bearing of life qualifies our sisters for something special.

I know you’ve already had responses to this. But I wanted to say a few things out.

 

You seem to be working with the prettiest picture of women, rather than women themselves. When you mentioned that special bond, i kept thinking of this book i recently read littered with examples of fairly toxic mothers. From emotional scars, manipulation, right on up to mothers who kill their children. Motherhood isn’t this divine attribute that causes women to naturally become Christ like. It’s an opportunity to grow and become better but just as some men fail to live up to their opportunities, women often do too. 
 

lastly motherhood is not the parallel to priesthood, since women also have priesthood power and capacity to use said authority and power. Personally I felt closer to christ at other points in my life...not so much pregnancy and birth. your description doesn’t fit my lived experiences as a mother or a woman. It looks more like an iconic and glowy image of what women really are. 
 

with luv,

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think linguistically might not be the best approach to this question.  It seems to me more theological.  All the theories against female perdition don't rely on the usage of the word Son.

Why not?  

We are faced with language differences all the time. When the Messiah is called "Son of Man" does this mean that he only has a Father, and no Mother?  Of course not.  "Man" in this context would refer to the Deity as both male and female.  

Whatever the theories say, they are theories. Not fact, nor doctrine. I think it's reasonable for "Son" in this context to be generic. Especially since sonship in this context cannot possibly mean literal offspring. "Son" is a figurative, and as a figurative there's no reason why its actual meaning couldn't be extended to females.  In my humble opinion.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I know you’ve already had responses to this. But I wanted to say a few things out.

 

You seem to be working with the prettiest picture of women, rather than women themselves. When you mentioned that special bond, i kept thinking of this book i recently read littered with examples of fairly toxic mothers. From emotional scars, manipulation, right on up to mothers who kill their children. Motherhood isn’t this divine attribute that causes women to naturally become Christ like. It’s an opportunity to grow and become better but just as some men fail to live up to their opportunities, woneb often do too. 
 

lastly motherhood is not the parallel to priesthood, since women also have priesthood power and capacity to use said authority and power. Personally I felt closer to christ at other points in my life...not so much pregnancy and birth. your description doesn’t fit my lived experiences as a mother or a woman. It looks more like an iconic and glowy image of what women really are. 
 

with luv,

BD 

I tend to idolize women, despite having seen a good number of non-ideal versions. I don't know how to cure myself of this idolization.  "Glowy"! I like that word.  My wife is not perfect, but despite her faults she still glows!

I think we all need ideal examples to strive for. Our ultimate ideal exemplar of course is Jesus Christ, but how difficult might His example be to follow?  If we can find an appropriate exemplar closer to home and easier to relate to, perhaps that is good.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

think we all need ideal examples to strive for.

I disagree if by examples you mean people. Some people may be benefitted by them, others find idealized versions of people burdensome and it is the more realistic portrayal people that help them to grow.  Sometimes others have better success to simply visualize a better self than put their standard/measure outside themselves.  It can feel too much like a competition, a goal line they must cross to be happy (and being an ideal this rarely happens so they perceive their efforts as failures) rather than a process of growth. 

Those who are viewed as idealized...I suppose some see the role as useful or appropriate. Most I talk to about it who feel someone is idealizing them very much dislike it because they don’t see the one who idealizes them as having a real relationship with them or even caring to. That person wants their ideal, not the reality.  They don’t see the other as really connecting with them, paying attention to them. The other are too busy admiring the ideal.  They also don’t like to be seen as an ideal by others because they know they are human and will disappoint (if the person is actually paying attention and not focusing on the fantasy), which may result in problems for the other that didn’t have to be. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree if by examples you mean people. 

I'm hard-pressed to imagine any other kind.  Even visualizing a better self requires a self to visualize.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some people may be benefitted by them, others find idealized versions of people burdensome and it is the more realistic portrayal people that help them to grow.

I'm not saying, "Find an ideal person and do likewise."  First of all, find one.  You'll have to get out your torch, like Diogenes, and wander the city looking for him or her.

That is exactly my point: find someone you can relate to, as an exemplar, and seek to emulate his or her positive qualities.  Even if this person does not exhibit all the positive qualities one needs, this person could serve in part as an exemplar. For example, as a software developer, I had a co-worker whose knowledge and experience was quite deep and broad. I spent time with him, picked his brain, observed how he worked, and in time I raised myself closer to his level.  But as for spiritual things, no way, Jose -- he was an atheist.  In that regard, I'd be better off trying to follow the example of Cleon Skousen, for example.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Sometimes others have better success to simply visualize a better self than put their standard/measure outside themselves.  It can feel too much like a competition, a goal line they must cross to be happy (and being an ideal this rarely happens so they perceive their efforts as failures) rather than a process of growth. 

Of course. You're familiar perhaps with Ben Franklin's self-improvement program?  https://servetolead.org/benjamin-franklin-self-improvement-project/

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Those who are viewed as idealized...I suppose some see the role as useful or appropriate. Most I talk to about it who feel someone is idealizing them very much dislike it because they don’t see the one who idealizes them as having a real relationship with them or even caring to. That person wants their ideal, not the reality.  They don’t see the other as really connecting with them, paying attention to them. The other are too busy admiring the ideal.  They also don’t like to be seen as an ideal by others because they know they are human and will disappoint (if the person is actually paying attention and not focusing on the fantasy), which may result in problems for the other that didn’t have to be. 

Do you not think that there are members of the Church who look at Russell M. Nelson and see someone to be emulated?  Are they wrong to do so?  He is too busy (and so are they) for them to drop by the house and take up a personal relationship.  But they can perhaps read what he's written and listen to what he has said, and thereby gain an insight into improving themselves.

There's a non-subtle difference between sincere emulation and hero-worship (and cult of personality, besides).  

You don't need to "connect" with someone to benefit from following their example.  And you don't need to become them, either.

Of course, the ultimate ideal is Deity. Good luck following that example, but that's where we should all envision arriving at.  That's why I say that if we are to have an exemplar, it better be someone closer to home.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I'm hard-pressed to imagine any other kind.

There are ideals of beliefs, etc.  But you don’t have to idealize someone to emulate them.  You can hold very realistic views of them, might be even more effective. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are ideals of beliefs, etc.  But you don’t have to idealize someone to emulate them.  You can hold very realistic views of them, might be even more effective. 

Given that there are no ideal persons upon the Earth in mortality, all we have are realistic views. Of course, some people confuse the real and the ideal.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Given that there are no ideal persons upon the Earth in mortality, all we have are realistic views. Of course, some people confuse the real and the ideal.

I don’t think you are using ideal and realistic in the same way as I am. The realistic view of Christ is that he is perfect. Idealized view of the Church leaders are they are infallible in some way. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, let's ask ourselves how man SoPs there will be.  And then ask ourselves, will they all be housed together in the same apartment building? Will they form social clubs, meet at the pub once a week to play skittles together?

Or will they be held in solitary confinement?

Probably the latter.

Not that I know.

Like in the TV commercial, Skittles shall be squeezed from their paps but narry a morsel shall they enjoy... only force-fed the ill-flavored defects. And that's just the men...

Link to comment

I would be curious why it is said people fall or descend to perdition in the first place?  what could be really be the cause?  I mean if its something like "well people only go to hell if they know enough stuff and refuse to accept it" one wonders how there is really any threat there at all?  It seems humans are apt to suggest hell is for people like Hitler, at the very least.  But Mormonism is different in that Hitler's not destined for the devil's eternal torment place...he never knew anyway (although I grant individual Mormons would likely say Hitler was just so bad he might deserve it without knowing anyway).  When Jesus talks, in Matthew, about people heading to his left and right side, with the left going to the same place as the devil, he's only talking about believers.  He's also not talking about believers who know enough and reject Him.  He's talking about believers who think they have done well, but He refused to know them so they are destined to hell.  Of course when Jesus tells the same story to Alma, He includes unbelievers as those who are destined to hell.  

I was taught from a young age, men are those who have the risk of perdition because they are the ones who covenant with God while women only covenant with the man and not God.  I haven't followed the trail of where that teaching might have come from, but it sounds very early to mid-20th century-ish to me.  

Link to comment
On 6/20/2020 at 11:52 AM, pogi said:

Sons of men - "It occurs most frequently, however, as a synonym for "mankind," "the human race" (Ps. xc. 3, cvii. 8, cxv. 16, cxlv. 12); it has this sense also in the passage in which wisdom is said to delight with the "sons of men" (Prov. viii. 31)."

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13913-son-of-man

 

 Oops, I read you saying Sons of God for some reason. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I would be curious why it is said people fall or descend to perdition in the first place?  what could be really be the cause? 

The individual's exercise of their agency?

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I mean if its something like "well people only go to hell if they know enough stuff and refuse to accept it" one wonders how there is really any threat there at all? 

I think very few of us will ever attain the level of knowledge required to "fall" in such a way as to become a son of perdition.  In that sense, I agree that the "threat" is not that worrisome.  Not because perdition isn't awful, but because so few of us are at risk of going there.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It seems humans are apt to suggest hell is for people like Hitler, at the very least.  But Mormonism is different in that Hitler's not destined for the devil's eternal torment place...he never knew anyway (although I grant individual Mormons would likely say Hitler was just so bad he might deserve it without knowing anyway).  When Jesus talks, in Matthew, about people heading to his left and right side, with the left going to the same place as the devil, he's only talking about believers.  He's also not talking about believers who know enough and reject Him.  He's talking about believers who think they have done well, but He refused to know them so they are destined to hell.  Of course when Jesus tells the same story to Alma, He includes unbelievers as those who are destined to hell.  

This seems to pre-suppose the heaven/hell dichotomy.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I was taught from a young age, men are those who have the risk of perdition because they are the ones who covenant with God while women only covenant with the man and not God.  I haven't followed the trail of where that teaching might have come from, but it sounds very early to mid-20th century-ish to me.  

I've never heard that taught.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The individual's exercise of their agency?

I think very few of us will ever attain the level of knowledge required to "fall" in such a way as to become a son of perdition.  In that sense, I agree that the "threat" is not that worrisome.  Not because perdition isn't awful, but because so few of us are at risk of going there.

This seems to pre-suppose the heaven/hell dichotomy.

I've never heard that taught.

Thanks,

-Smac

What agency is there for those whom God never has known or has never gotten to know?  Assuming Alma is correct and all of those who are sent to eternal torment with the devil are all those whom God never knew?  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The individual's exercise of their agency?

I think very few of us will ever attain the level of knowledge required to "fall" in such a way as to become a son of perdition.  In that sense, I agree that the "threat" is not that worrisome.  Not because perdition isn't awful, but because so few of us are at risk of going there.

This seems to pre-suppose the heaven/hell dichotomy.

I've never heard that taught.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've not heard that specific thing taught, but similarly I have heard that women basically get a free pass because of covenants made in the temple, though I disagree with that.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...