Navidad Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 54 minutes ago, Stargazer said: If baptism is not required, then why does it even exist? I apologize in advance if I offend you in saying this, but your interpretation of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus sounds very much like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient fact. And it sounds like a very modern innovation. Do you really think that God is that loosy-goosy? Up until very recently, Christian missionaries at all times and all places have first, taught investigators the gospel, and second, once the investigator has accepted the gospel, they are baptized. Invariably so. The examples of this in the New Testament are abundant, and I hope you won't think I am being too detailed here, but... Acts 2 : On the day of Pentecost, when the people listening to Peter's sermon are convinced at his preaching, they asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" We all know Peter's answer: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 8 : Phillip went into Samaria and taught the people the Gospel, and as they believed, they were baptized; later Peter and John came in order to complete the ordinances by conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 8 : Phillip is then commanded by the Spirit to join with the eunuch from Ethiopia, and after he teaches him the gospel, the eunuch says; "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Whereupon Phillip baptizes him. Acts 9 : After Paul is blinded through his conversation with Christ, Ananias is sent to him to heal him, and upon being healed, the first thing he does is get baptized. We learn in Acts 22:16, from Paul's own description of the event, that this is part and parcel of forgiveness, as he reports Ananias words to him: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 10 : Peter is summoned to teach the Gospel to the centurion Cornelius as well as his household and friends. They all believe and as evidence of their faith, the Holy Ghost works upon them. Peter then says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And he commands that they be baptized. Acts 13:14-41 : Paul preaches to the Jews in Pisidia and during his teaching he describes John the Baptist's mission (v. 24): "When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." The case in point here is Paul's description of John's mission as the baptism of all of the people of Israel. Acts 16:14,15 : Lydia of Thyatira hears the gospel from Paul, and the first thing that happens then is her baptism. Acts 16:25-34 : After healing a woman of an evil divining spirit, Paul and Silas are accused and cast into prison; the prison is broken by an earthquake sent by God, and after stopping the warden from committing suicide because of the apparent escape, they teach him the gospel. He believes, and they baptize him. Acts 18:7,8 : Crispus and his house believe Paul's teaching, and is baptized. Acts 19:1-7 : Paul comes upon 12 men who claimed to have been baptized. But upon inquiring upon whether they had received the Holy Ghost, he discovers that they hadn't heard of the Holy Ghost. Paul takes this as evidence that they had not been baptized properly, and not only baptizes them, but also confers the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them. Whereupon the Holy Ghost falls on them and they speak with tongues and prophesy. At no time are these new converts told they don't need to be baptized, or that it is optional. It is done without question. There are occasions when baptism isn't mentioned, but does it need to be mentioned every single time in order to be necessary? When Jesus came to John the Baptist for his own baptism, John questioned him about the propriety of it, saying "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Whereupon Jesus replied "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." If there was any being in Creation who had no need of baptism, it was Jesus. Yet still he had it done, with words that clearly stated its necessity: "to fulfill all righteousness." Paul explained this in Romans 6:3-5... 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Clearly, baptism is in similitude of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and are we not expected to follow Christ's example? The Roman church, the Orthodox church, and all the rest baptized all new converts, and all children, without exception for the better part of 2000 years. Even the rebellious Protestant churches baptized all communicants, without exception. Whether sprinkled or immersed, done to babes or to adults, all were baptized. And only fairly recently was it suddenly "discovered" by certain innovators that baptism was just "nice". You can find these "refutations" of the need for baptism all over the place. One fine example is found on the "Grace to You" website: Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? That website comes up with all kinds of convoluted arguments against baptism. I don't have time to go over them all and why they are bunk. But they are. Again I pose the question: if it isn't necessary, why did Christ get baptised? If any ordinance is just for fun, why does it even exist? And if the dead don't need it, why does Paul use baptism for the dead as a teaching tool? Greetings from Chihuahua: Your reply doesn't offend me at all. No need to be worried about that. Let me assure you I have the highest regard, love for, and commitment to the Savior and my faith as you do for yours. Having said that, let me clarify a few things: 1. I absolutely believe in the importance of baptism. I have baptized people from the jungles of Africa to the swimming pools of New Jersey, in the ocean, in a baptistry, in a river - I think that about covers it. 2. I prefer immersion, because that is what the early church did, and the word for Christ's baptism implies going "down into the water." 3. You have authority to baptize in the LDS church and in no other church that I know of - possibly the Community of Christ - I don't know about that. I have authority to baptize in the Mennonite, the Baptist, and in many non-denominational churches and groups who would accept my ordination. I attend an LDS ward and understand and accept that I may not exercise my authority there because I have none. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. You can't enter or attend a Baptist church and baptize anyone either, because you have no authority there. I respect your authority as it is – an administrative authority emanating from your faith and granted you because you have met the requirements for the same in and limited to the LDS church. I hope you will respect mine as well, as limited as it is. 4. I don't believe that sectarian (non-LDS Christian) ministers are committing blasphemy (Kimball) or are ministers of Lucifer or Satan when they baptize. I don't believe LDS elders are any other than sincere ministers of their church and of the gospel of Christ as they understand it. No mocking from me. I would never say your beliefs are bunk. In fact, I think the LDS commitment to the atonement is terrific and salvific; everything else is an appendage, as a famous LDS leader once said! Please grant me the same respect as much as your doctrine allows you to. You may disagree with everything I say – but nothing I know of in your faith requires you to call it “bunk.” “Wrong” might be a bit less aggressive. 5. I was baptized at approximately the age of 7 years by my father. I was baptized by immersion as a public testimony, and testimony to my commitment to the gospel. I was also required in that to make certain covenants. It was important for me to do that. I do not believe it was salvific. In fact, in my faith tradition, one may not be baptized unless he or she has provided evidence of having experienced salvation prior to the act of baptism. Baptism is then a testimony or witness of that commitment. Was baptism necessary as a part of that conversion? No. Was it important as a public witness of the same? Yes. Did we endeavor to follow the form that Christ used? Yes. We don’t believe in the essential or salvific nature of any ordinances? We do have ordinances that we honor as we partake in them. Foot-washing is one example, that in the 19th century was much more prevalent in the LDS church than now. 6. Would I have to be rebaptized to join a Catholic church? No. The Catholic church accepts baptisms from a long list of other groups. Did or do all non-LDS Christian groups believe baptism is salvific? No. Many do not. In my Mennonite heritage being baptized in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries was a bold step. Back then many Protestant groups as well as the Catholic church baptized infants. Indicating that one had to be rebaptized after the age of accountability as did the Mennonites was quite a bold and dangerous thing to do. Many – thousands of Mennonites were martyred by drowning in the rivers of Europe by both Catholics and Protestants. Being baptized was literally risking one’s life. That is why we hold such a high view of baptism. Not only does it remind of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, but also of the thousands who have, by that one simple act signed their death warrant. 7. We believe the Holy Spirit is present when we are baptized. The Holy Spirit is another witness to our baptisms. We don’t believe we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit via baptism, however. In that sense it is neither salvific nor a means for the receipt of the Holy Spirit in our faith – nor in the Baptist faith, nor in a host of other faiths. 8. Another subject, but we are also not creedal Christians. No creed is salvific or necessary for salvation. It seems like some of my LDS friends seem to think that all non-LDS Christians are creedal. Many of the largest Protestant groups are non-creedal. Mennonites are also not Protestant, or Catholic We believe we were one of the very first restorational Christian groups. Hopefully you can understand the pride we hold in that. I need to move on to do some other things. I hope this missive helps you better understand us. Hopefully I have explained our beliefs to you, absent the bunk. I offer none of this to you to suggest that your beliefs are in any way less than mine. I am sure they are as true (small t) for you as mine are true (small t) for me. When we arrive at the other side, we will then know the Truth (with a large T). Best wishes.
Stargazer Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Lots of evil done by lots of women throughout history. It makes me feel better when people can acknowledge that women have just as much of the natural man in them as men do. It's not like you guys fell further than we did. As you say, you fell as far as we did. And of course you have just as much natural man in you. But what difference does that make? It's not how much natural man is in each of us. The important thing is how well each of us resist that natural man. You and @Calm both seem to continue to miss the point. I assert that more women will be exalted than men. This is unprovable, of course. But the fact that lots of evil has been done by women in history, or that (some) women attempt to deceive men about their true perfidious nature, does not serve to disprove it, either. What will be the female to male ratio in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, for exaltation? I don't know, but I believe it will exceed 1.0. If one more woman than men are to be exalted, then there's a problem. And thus, plural marriage in the eternities will prove necessary in order to advance the goals that Father set. This seems to be borne out by scripture, and in no case can a scripture counter it. I'm not operating from personal desire, licentiousness, or greed. I want only one wife in the eternities, assuming I am found worthy of exaltation. Alas, everything indicates otherwise. What if I'm wrong and you're right? Hip hip hooray! But I'm dead certain you're wrong. -1
Popular Post bluebell Posted August 5, 2021 Popular Post Posted August 5, 2021 38 minutes ago, Stargazer said: As you say, you fell as far as we did. And of course you have just as much natural man in you. But what difference does that make? It's not how much natural man is in each of us. The important thing is how well each of us resist that natural man. You and @Calm both seem to continue to miss the point. I assert that more women will be exalted than men. This is unprovable, of course. But the fact that lots of evil has been done by women in history, or that (some) women attempt to deceive men about their true perfidious nature, does not serve to disprove it, either. What will be the female to male ratio in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, for exaltation? I don't know, but I believe it will exceed 1.0. If one more woman than men are to be exalted, then there's a problem. And thus, plural marriage in the eternities will prove necessary in order to advance the goals that Father set. This seems to be borne out by scripture, and in no case can a scripture counter it. I'm not operating from personal desire, licentiousness, or greed. I want only one wife in the eternities, assuming I am found worthy of exaltation. Alas, everything indicates otherwise. What if I'm wrong and you're right? Hip hip hooray! But I'm dead certain you're wrong. It's not that we miss the point, it's that we assert that the point is incorrect, and that it actually does some damage to both men and women when it's repeated. I have three sons and a daughter. I do not want my daughter to believe that she is more likely to receive exaltation than her brothers. That would not be healthy for her. Neither do I want my sons to believe that they are less likely to receive exaltation than their sister. That would be just as unhealthy for them. 5
mfbukowski Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Stargazer said: You and @Calm both seem to continue to miss the point. I assert that more women will be exalted than men. This is unprovable, of course. Not necessarily Go to the temple with a female friend and both listen to the wording of the washing ritual, then in the celestial room, compare notes. Women "get off" much easier than men on every whit of the ordinance, while men get to slog through the mud of repentance. Unless of course the words have been changed while no one was looking (covid) Edited August 5, 2021 by mfbukowski The beauty of the earth 1
Stargazer Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Not necessarily Go to the temple with a female friend and both listen to the wording of the washing ritual, then in the celestial room, compare notes. Women "get off" much easier than men on every whit of the ordinance, while men get to slog through the mud of repentance. Unless of course the words have been changed while no one was looking (covid) That still doesn't constitute proof. Unless the Lord gives President Nelson a revelation that says that explicitly, we're going to be arguing back and forth on that until the cows come home.
Tacenda Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Not necessarily Go to the temple with a female friend and both listen to the wording of the washing ritual, then in the celestial room, compare notes. Women "get off" much easier than men on every whit of the ordinance, while men get to slog through the mud of repentance. Unless of course the words have been changed while no one was looking (covid) Like a big set up to keep men out?
Bernard Gui Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) On 8/4/2021 at 2:23 PM, Tacenda said: Scary, right? As scary as those folks who regularly riot, attack LEOs, burn government buildings, destroy businesses and vehicles, assault by-standers and reporters, trespass on private property………? Edited August 5, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Stargazer Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's not that we miss the point, it's that we assert that the point is incorrect, and that it actually does some damage to both men and women when it's repeated. I get it. Battling assertions. What if it's true, though? I've presented more scripture and logic to back up my assertion than you have, at least IMHO. Just denying that it means what I believe it means does not make it incorrect. Are you truly damaged to hear me assert it repeatedly? I apologize if that is the case, but you seem to be unfazed. There's a very minute subset of humanity represented here in this forum, after all, and pretty much everyone on this board is as tough as nails in their own convictions. I'm not teaching Sunday School or Primary here. Does it personally offend you to hear this idea expressed? More than the idea of plural marriage itself? 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: I have three sons and a daughter. I do not want my daughter to believe that she is more likely to receive exaltation than her brothers. That would not be healthy for her. Neither do I want my sons to believe that they are less likely to receive exaltation than their sister. That would be just as unhealthy for them. Well, don't tell them about it! I would never try to teach that in Sunday School! As you say, it's unhealthy for anyone to think that their level of commitment to the Lord need not be exemplary, but that isn't what that means anyway! All it says is that in the end there will be more women who will qualify. You can't slack off just because you're a woman. There will be many women who will not qualify. Just not as few as men who qualify, in my opinion. Nor is it healthy for anyone to think they haven't got a shot. It's hard enough because too many people do think they don't have one! The only reason I bring it up here is because we are in this thread wrestling with the concept of plural marriage -- something that is extremely problematic for some. The question is: "Will there be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom?" Given DC 131 and 132 alone the obvious answer is "Yes". In saying more women will be exaltable than men, all I am providing is a logical reason as to why it might be the case that plural marriage will be in the Celestial Kingdom. How you're missing the point is in arguing with the reason for my assertion that there will be more women than men to be exalted. That assertion flows from an understanding of the relevant scriptures. DC 131:1-4 states very clearly: "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border 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." DC 132:6 says that the "new and everlasting covenant" includes the possibility of the plurality of wives: "And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." What is the fullness of His glory? To be an eternal parent. As Eliza Snow, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, taught this in her poem O My Father, which is nowadays the lyrics to hymn 292: "In the Heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare!" If you want, you can believe that: A. Joseph Smith was an insatiable satyr who was trying to bed as many women as he could, and that was the origin of DC 131 and 132, and thus he was a false prophet. B. Or you can believe that DC 131 and 132 was Joseph's "Satanic Verses", and reject those two sections as unworthy of a prophet of God. Making you a "Cafeteria Mormon" of sorts. In that case, why haven't subsequent prophets corrected the error? C. Or you can accept that he was a true prophet to whom God revealed true (if uncomfortable) principles that had been taught and practiced in the past, and these principles have now in the fullness of times been restored. Take your pick, I guess. I choose column C. I'm not "attracted" by column C, I don't want column C, but I see that it is necessarily how things are and will be.
Calm Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: As you say, you fell as far as we did. And of course you have just as much natural man in you. But what difference does that make? It's not how much natural man is in each of us. The important thing is how well each of us resist that natural man. The difference is stereotypes and preconceptions get in the way of seeing a person as they are, which is hard enough without a lot of bias in the way. And that is not only an unnecessary burden for the individual, but it can screw up relationships and lives a lot. And rob our community of making use of valuable skills and knowledge that never get developed because no one noticed an interest and the kid wasn’t able to access resources on their own or thought they shouldn’t. The assumption in my youth that girls would continue to be faithful and committed to the Church and what we needed most from church was help on the physical chores of being mothers led our leaders imo to ignore our spiritual and doctrinal development. Every ward I was in as a child and young adult, I was the only female who had more than a basic knowledge of the scriptures (which I learned from my mom, not my dad) while there would be several young men…who would then receive recognition, be the leaders of the priesthood group, be asked to give the talks, etc. I never held one calling as a youth, not even as a counselor (always lived in good size wards), was never asked to participate in sacrament programs and when I came back from college, they called me to teach the Sunbeams. Part was personality no doubt, but there were other quiet, but talented girls who were chosen as leaders….their interests were in music. The female leaders were women who were talented in what they did, many were involved in the community in volunteer work, but none of them ever expounded the scriptures to us as I saw happening in the priesthood classes. We were encouraged to bring our scriptures, but never asked to really discuss them beyond the basic lessons. I am not claiming that the boys had rabbis who taught them as they sat at their feet, but there was obvious recognition and support of young men who were into such (usually pitched as they were going to be great missionaries and church leaders one day) where any interest in such among girls typically was meant with a blank face as in ‘what are we supposed to do with her?’ and there was never any anticipation of being a great teacher or leader for many girls who had that interest (I am not the only young woman at BYU who had those experiences). I really, really hope there were exceptions and lots of them, but I never heard of any. Personally I have never been called as a teacher of anything but junior primary, except for 3 months in a very weird situation and that was in Primary. Another couple of callings were in scouting…where I had no background and was basically told I was called because no one else was available. I saw a lot of scholars (not always professionals, many were self taught) among male Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood teachers/leaders…any man who was a history buff spent a few years as gospel doctrine teacher….I finally saw female scholars (professional, not self taught) teaching about 15 years ago. We thankfully get talks now about women becoming gospel scholars in conference and developing those skills to expound the scriptures to our children and each other. I was thrilled when I first heard that direction coming from another woman to me and other women. In other directions, my life is very, very different because of the stereotype in my youth that girls weren’t interested in science or technology. I got barbies and not erector sets even though I asked for the latter. Did get a chemistry set once and prisms, but I was left to myself with them while Dad built engines and such with my brothers. My brother got a space in the garage and an allowance to work on his bike. I had to pack up after each work session to get it out of the way and scrounge for tools among my dad’s stuff. My dad never spent time with me to teach me how to wire a bathroom for lighting like he did my brothers, he never taught me how to use his woodworking tools like he taught my brothers, I wasn’t allowed (and I asked) to take shop in school and was stuck in home ex even though my mom had taught me all that eons before and I was bored out of my skull because all the projects were boring to me. I got plenty of attention in the typical stuff, so not saying my parents were neglectful. I was taught to be a great housekeeper, my parents both of them were hands on for that. And my mom talked to me about her personal interests, her dad was a stake patriarch later in life, he had actually spent time with her as the eldest and she had early on developed a love for them from his example, but her training was in art and education, so her education of me and my siblings in this area was haphazard. My college years…I let go of my dream I had since I knew it existed to be an astrophysicist because I was told I wouldn’t be hired, no one would want someone in a job like that who would be leaving in a few years to have babies. In engineering classes, I would help the guys with their math, but when asking help for the technical stuff neither students (I was the only female in those classes) nor professors were willing to take the time to give me the basics because you know, it wasn’t something I would need as a mother. Otoh, tons of support when I switched to psychology where I was one of many, many women and we had our own sub club. Same thing happened with assumptions based on my religion, one aspect of my personality (quietness), my physical build (no one with that shape wants to be a gymnast)… No doubt it sounds like I am whining, but besides the physicist career I am fine with what happened. Lots of missed opportunities, but I still had more than most. This assumption of not offering opportunities because one thinks one doesn’t have to ask to know the youth is not interested because of what they look like and not what they think is not unique to me or my sex or faith or personality. One of my son’s friends was Asian and all he wanted to do was play music, but everyone was supporting him to be a doctor or lawyer. I knew an outgoing, popular, and very beautiful girl who was brilliant, but I only found that out because she beat me on the test that leads to National Merit scholarships (can’t remember if special one or not)…the only one to do so in my high school…I thought she was pretty much an airhead before that (she went out of her way not to come off as smart for some reason, don’t know why, have strong suspicions). Stereotypes interfere with everyone being seen for who they truly are and so they are pushed off paths they are eager to explore rather than encouraged and given the support they need to be a success. I knew a lot of boys who would have preferred to learn how to cook rather than take woodshop. So when I see stereotypes I know there is no statistical support for, when I see stats being used to support ideas they don’t support (women going to church more than men does not equate to being more spiritual, more righteous), I tend to speak up because teaching girls how to be scholars or teaching boys how to prepare a tasty meal isn’t even dependent on limited resources. It pretty much just takes learning they are interested from what I have seen, iow paying attention to the individual themselves and not a premade cookie cutter image. We may see through a glass darkly as mortals no matter what we do or want, but that doesn’t mean God approves of us throwing mud up on the glass to darken our sight even more. I see part of my discipleship is to help others polish their glasses where I can and hope that others will do the same for me…one of the reasons I am on the board is because it was difficult to find those interested in examining ideas at the level where bias and assumptions could be exposed for what they are. Edited August 5, 2021 by Calm 2
Calm Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) And direct to the women are headed to exaltation more than men, women are naturally more spiritual…the effects of those beliefs from what I could tell created more of a neglect of spiritual activity in girls and young women since if one doesn’t see a need to develop a certain skill, there is always something else crying for one’s attention. The glorifying of women did not lead to behaviour that matched the expectations except superficially as far as I could tell. Instead, it seemed to create lack of interest and then self esteem issues and doubt in self and in the faith when spirituality did not come easy after all. There is a big problem when one is aware of one’s lacks, but is told one is fine and concerns get dismissed. If a girl believes she as a female should be naturally spiritual, then it is reasonable for her to assume there is something inherently wrong with her when she knows she is not, not just lack of opportunity or attention. I made a big mistake with my daughter. My son was gifted with math, we were playing with negative numbers and square roots when he was in kindergarten. My husband is good at math as well while math is a part of my identity, it was like breathing to me…I related to the world to a great extent with math analogies. I just assumed my daughter would love it too and I would talk about how fun it was and how much we had to look forward to playing math games together like I did with her brother. At this point, I don’t know if she was decent or even a bit gifted to begin with, but she ended up with a math block by 5th grade or so and it became a struggle for her to retain any knowledge. I was very disappointed. That didn’t help at all. We no longer speak about math much in our home. My mom was brilliant and never had anything she couldn’t do if she tried that depended on her brain (her body was her weak link). But there was lots she won’t try because she never had when she assumed that was because she was lacking in talent, not opportunities. For example, Dad didn’t want to be bothered with sharing the computer with her as he wanted it available when he wanted it (he was using it for work and finances, so not trivial). For him, it just seemed more efficient to do anything computer related for Mom. Suddenly I am hearing from Mom how dumb she is with computers, and then it is technology in general she is stupid about. We are talking simple remotes and telephones. We gave her gifts of her own IPad and even just digital photo frames and they sat in their gift boxes unused. Originally every time we suggest sitting with her and teaching her, she was too busy and just didn’t see it as worth her time. And then it morphed into a worry she couldn’t understand and no way was she going to let us try and teach her, she wouldn’t even look at them. Some of that was dementia…but she taught herself how to work a complicated washer and dryer even because laundry was her thing and she was always proud of her ability for clothing to look good forever, yet she freaked about the dishwasher that required her to close the door and push the button…because that was Dad’s job before he died. It was all about expectations and she crippled herself because she saw herself as lacking compared to everyone else rather than just inexperienced. If one assumes spirituality is natural to one, why question if one needs to work on it? More likely there will be an assumption that when one needs to be spiritual, it will just happen…and then one is left when the crisis hits without knowing where to start…and that moment of disorientation and self questioning may end up causing a crisis of faith…in oneself and in the Gospel. I notice this in questions that get sent into FAIR. Women usually ask for help understanding starting at basic levels. Men often do as well, but more men demonstrate they have studied the scriptures looking for answers than the women have. They appear to be more proactive finding their own answers and are asking less for the answer to be given them and more often for input on their own explorations. And men take the feedback or information and thank us for it and move on for the most part, but a lot of women still feel dissatisfied and respond with the same questions again. I can really see major differences when women have been trained to study scriptures or similar forms of analysis that can be adapted to scriptures and where they have not. Women are more likely to assume they can’t find information or the insight on their own, it appears to me. When they don’t make that assumption, we have the same sort of conversations I have with the men who I send responses to. I have known a lot of women who don’t see themselves as that spiritual and see no point in trying to become that way since it is supposed to be natural. They focus on serving others and doing good and are wonderful people and faithful members, but appear to be prone to burnout and at times end up leaving the Church because they are too tired and don’t see another way to be part of the community if they aren’t the workhorse, the support of others. There are many drawbacks Imo to teaching women that as a sex they are more spiritual. And though I am much less familiar with the effect on men since men don’t open up to me about feeling inadequate, I see no reason to doubt the impact is significant on them as well. Edited August 5, 2021 by Calm 1
Teancum Posted August 5, 2021 Posted August 5, 2021 6 hours ago, Stargazer said: Yeah, you busy yourself quite a lot trying to refute things that you think are silly. Why bother? If you were here trying to encourage people to find salvation through something other than "Mormonism", your activity here would at least make sense. Or are you trying to make us as happy as you are in your unbelief? Perhaps you're being altruistic about it. By the way, I answered your question in a separate post. I did not see your answer. Why post? Because Mormonism was and still is and has a huge impact on my life. I come here because I am still interested in Mormonism. I come here some for entertainment. I also post here not to convince you or others that may be true believers though that could happen. I know when I was a defender I obviously found the critics arguments compelling. And the ones I found the most compelling were those who were LDS believers but no longer were. So perhaps someone l may persuade or influence someone like me. As to persuade someone to another salvation, that is now a foreign concept to me as I don't believe humans are in need of salvation from a higher being. If there is a higher God like being I don't believe there is a prescribed step by step process to salvation whatever that may mean. I am much happier now than I was as an active Mormon and like how I see the world and my fellow humans much better. The world looks a lot different without the LDS colored glassed on. Am I altruistic about it? No. Am I on a mission to bring others to "unbelief" whatever that means? Nope. I am fine with others living their lives like they want so long as it is not harmful to others. On this particular topic I fell strongly the dogma around it has harmed many Latter-day Saints in the past and continues to cause much consternation and heartache about something that just will never be. And I think the posts here and all the hoops it seems that are needed to jump through or simply ignore and say it will all work out. So yea on this subject I do hope to persuade people to reject it as being from some divine being or God because on any LDS topic I am fairly certain it is not. 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted August 6, 2021 Popular Post Posted August 6, 2021 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: The only reason I bring it up here is because we are in this thread wrestling with the concept of plural marriage -- something that is extremely problematic for some. The question is: "Will there be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom?" Given DC 131 and 132 alone the obvious answer is "Yes". In saying more women will be exaltable than men, all I am providing is a logical reason as to why it might be the case that plural marriage will be in the Celestial Kingdom. How you're missing the point is in arguing with the reason for my assertion that there will be more women than men to be exalted. That assertion flows from an understanding of the relevant scriptures. Barbara Gardner (a professor of church history and doctrine at BYU), in a podcast teaching about D&C 84, spends some time talking with Hank Smith and John Bytheway about the false traditions that creep into the church here and there. She then talks about how much she appreciated it when Pres. Oaks taught that one of the biggest problems we have in the church is giving answers to questions that God has not revealed. (She does not provide a source for that quote so I can't give it but I can share the podcast and the timestamp of where she said it for anyone that wants it.) I echo Pres. Oaks. Giving answers for why polygamy is true, that God hasn't revealed, causes way more problems than it solves. God hasn't revealed anywhere that women are more spiritual than men. We don't teach it, it's not located anywhere in our scriptures, and it's not taught in the temple. Quote If you want, you can believe that: A. Joseph Smith was an insatiable satyr who was trying to bed as many women as he could, and that was the origin of DC 131 and 132, and thus he was a false prophet. B. Or you can believe that DC 131 and 132 was Joseph's "Satanic Verses", and reject those two sections as unworthy of a prophet of God. Making you a "Cafeteria Mormon" of sorts. In that case, why haven't subsequent prophets corrected the error? C. Or you can accept that he was a true prophet to whom God revealed true (if uncomfortable) principles that had been taught and practiced in the past, and these principles have now in the fullness of times been restored. My discussion with you is not whether or not polygamy is of God. It's specifically about your opinion that polygamy exists because there will be more exalted women than men. 5
JLHPROF Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 1 minute ago, bluebell said: My discussion with you is not whether or not polygamy is of God. It's specifically about your opinion that polygamy exists because there will be more exalted women than men. The question then becomes is it because there are more worthy women or more women numerically. I don't know of any reliable doctrine on either. There is the questionable Mosiah Hancock vision that claimed no women fell with the third of the hosts of heaven. There are statements from early leaders that might imply both possibilities. Statistics supposedly prove a more equal number but records only go back so far. Bottom line for me is if God eventually requires it then it works. As we learned from Nephi.
mfbukowski Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: That still doesn't constitute proof. Unless the Lord gives President Nelson a revelation that says that explicitly, we're going to be arguing back and forth on that until the cows come home. You want proof? Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin proved there was no God, because he did not see Him. That kind of proof cannot in principle exist.
Calm Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The question then becomes is it because there are more worthy women or more women numerically. Why even care about the question of why there are more exalted women in heaven when we don’t know if there are? Shall we debate who would be the more likely to survive the longest if stranded on Mars with survival resources between pool technician or a security guard? Quote There is the questionable Mosiah Hancock vision that claimed no women fell with the third of the hosts of heaven. There are statements from early leaders that might imply both possibilities. Some people believe women don’t have a soul. Edited August 6, 2021 by Calm 1
mfbukowski Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: Like a big set up to keep men out? Huh?
mfbukowski Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 1 hour ago, Calm said: Why even care about the question of why there are more exalted women in heaven when we don’t know if there are? Shall we debate who would be the more likely to survive the longest if stranded on Mars with survival resources between pool technician or a security guard? Oh heck we see FAR more absurd stuff around here than that. What DO we "know" about heaven anyway if we want certainty?
bluebell Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: The question then becomes is it because there are more worthy women or more women numerically. I don't know of any reliable doctrine on either. There is the questionable Mosiah Hancock vision that claimed no women fell with the third of the hosts of heaven. There are statements from early leaders that might imply both possibilities. Statistics supposedly prove a more equal number but records only go back so far. Bottom line for me is if God eventually requires it then it works. As we learned from Nephi. Another question could be “or is it for some reason we don’t even know to consider yet?” 1
Calm Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Oh heck we see FAR more absurd stuff around here than that. What DO we "know" about heaven anyway if we want certainty? True. Sounds good. I am going to start listing all the reasons there will be more men will exalted in the CK: 1) Men like useless meetings more (I based this on how often they organize them) and get rewarded by the Father for their great sacrifices even if they were a mistake because he feels bad for leaving out Thou shalt Not multiply meetings out of the 11 commandments 2) they have wives making sure they get there 3) easy production of endless sperm means more kids per man with little effort and thus racking up glory sounds like a winning proposition, while women decide after watching some of the longtime, really committed females on their billionth pregnancy that there are better ways to spend eternity…plus it is eternity. They always have time for it….and go off to check out the latest in the Andromeda Galaxy as they hear the women there have this great new project decorating with the local globular clusters 4) men like to collect things more, especially kingdoms and dominions 5) women are on the fast track, with eyes focused on the core principles and not distracted by the bells and whistles and have moved on to the next stage after exaltation quickly and are off having fun with God the Mother and participating in what she, the Father, and the Son have planned for us once the basic stuff gets taken care of while the men are spending their time in the CK drawing up charts on where they fit into the hierarchy and figuring out how many more children they need to add downline to move up to the next level of exaltation 6) lots of men never make it to the mental age of accountability in mortality and those massive numbers go to the CK upon death along with all those who die before the age of 8. With so many there, the lower levels are bursting at the seams and tensions start ramping up, but with some heavy personal attention, God shifts enough men to exaltation and off making their own worlds rather than crowding out his that peace is restored to heaven. Edited August 6, 2021 by Calm 3
The Nehor Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: As scary as those folks who regularly riot, attack LEOs, burn government buildings, destroy businesses and vehicles, assault by-standers and reporters, trespass on private property………? When the basis of your defense of something is reduced to whataboutism you are admitting you do not have a defense and have conceded defeat. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Calm said: True. Sounds good. I am going to start listing all the reasons there will be more men will exalted in the CK: 1) Men like useless meetings more (I based this on how often they organize them) and get rewarded by the Father for their great sacrifices even if they were a mistake because he feels bad for leaving out Thou shalt Not multiply meetings out of the 11 commandments 2) they have wives making sure they get there 3) easy production of endless sperm means more kids per man with little effort and thus racking up glory sounds like a winning proposition, while women decide after watching some of the longtime, really committed females on their billionth pregnancy that there are better ways to spend eternity…plus it is eternity. They always have time for it….and go off to check out the latest in the Andromeda Galaxy as they hear the women there have this great new project decorating with the local globular clusters 4) men like to collect things more, especially kingdoms and dominions 5) women are on the fast track, with eyes focused on the core principles and not distracted by the bells and whistles and have moved on to the next stage after exaltation quickly and are off having fun with God the Mother and participating in what she, the Father, and the Son have planned for us once the basic stuff gets taken care of while the men are spending their time in the CK drawing up charts on where they fit into the hierarchy and figuring out how many more children they need to add downline to move up to the next level of exaltation 6) lots of men never make it to the mental age of accountability in mortality and those massive numbers go to the CK upon death along with all those who die before the age of 8. With so many there, the lower levels are bursting at the seams and tensions start ramping up, but with some heavy personal attention, God shifts enough men to exaltation and off making their own worlds rather than crowding out his that peace is restored to heaven. Um...... Okkaaaaaay... Now we're even steven... Note the time of this post. Edited August 6, 2021 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Um...... Okkaaaaaay... Now we're even steven... Note the time of this post. I have no clue what you are trying to convey
Bernard Gui Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: When the basis of your defense of something is reduced to whataboutism you are admitting you do not have a defense and have conceded defeat. Well, no. Not defending anything. Just making a comparison between scary groups, Edited August 6, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Tacenda Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Huh? The way I read your comment, they make it harder for men to get to the CK than for the women in the temple covenants. c/p'd your comment here: Not necessarily Go to the temple with a female friend and both listen to the wording of the washing ritual, then in the celestial room, compare notes. Women "get off" much easier than men on every whit of the ordinance, while men get to slog through the mud of repentance. Unless of course the words have been changed while no one was looking (covid) Edited August 6, 2021 by Tacenda
Navidad Posted August 6, 2021 Posted August 6, 2021 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What DO we "know" about heaven anyway if we want certainty? Well said! We (humanity) seem to have an innate need to turn truth into Truth! The Dogma speaks loud in us!
Recommended Posts