Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you voting for Nixon or McGovern? I am still undecided.

hahahaha! But I live with a body shaming husband, he doesn't mean to, it happens subtly. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Tacenda said:

hahahaha! But I live with a body shaming husband, he doesn't mean to, it happens subtly. 

I think this happens a lot because it was so culturally ingrained for so many years.  But hopefully you can let your hubby know when he's doing it if it bothers you, and hopefully he's willing to work on getting better at not doing it.    

[teddyaware]

On 2/26/2022 at 9:12 PM, kimpearson said:

I have been thinking about a number of issues that cause most of the faith crisis or hard discussions in the Church.  I have thought about Brad Wilcox's attempts to give explanations to those issues.  I have recently been listening to Jared Halverson's explanation of those issues.  In my opinion, neither Brad nor Jared, give explanations that in the following words of Joseph Smith tastes sweet.

"This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which are given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more." (King Follet sermon)

So I would like to present some of those issues, what I see as the facts the Church claims on the issue and my views.  Would you please share your views on the issue and how you find an explanation that "tastes good" to you.

Women and the priesthood

Facts -

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it

My views

• Women not being ordained to the priesthood appears to be the result of thousands of years of cultural indoctrination with no indication that God was ever behind it.
• Leaders of the Church don't dare change anything unless they get a revelation from God.  Only President Kimball appears to have been willing of recent prophets to put the work in to get such a revelation.
• Our cultural conditioning conditions us to believe that men and women could never function smoothly together is a bishopric, stake presidency or high council.
• A very significant portion of the male active members of the Church would really struggle if women were ordained to the priesthood.
• Other churches have demonstrated beyond any doubt that women are capable of leading congregations and church leadership.
• I am not comfortable and feel nothing sweet tasting with any explanation I have ever been given as to why true doctrine is that women shouldn't be ordained to the priesthood.

Your views

I would love to hear your views on this issue and how you find a sweet taste with any explanation that has been given.

 

More issues to come but let us address them one at a time.

Can you imagine any scenario in which all the items you seem to lament as being unfair actually turn out to be God’s will, and the most effectual way to organize and expand his kingdom? 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

hahahaha! But I live with a body shaming husband, he doesn't mean to, it happens subtly. 

I hope you mean obliviously. Subtly suggests it is deliberate but he is hiding it.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I hope you mean obliviously. Subtly suggests it is deliberate but he is hiding it.

Obliviouslysubtle

ADD:

Ex: "Are you gonna eat that?"

And one day when I went to put on some pants that are not sweats but velour, so a little dressier, there was a big hole cut out of the bum, haha. Courtesy of my hubby. I actually thought it was funny at the time, he apparently didn't like me in them. 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are you voting for Nixon or McGovern? I am still undecided.

Just Mormon standard time...

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this happens a lot because it was so culturally ingrained for so many years.  But hopefully you can let your hubby know when he's doing it if it bothers you, and hopefully he's willing to work on getting better at not doing it.    

I do for the most part, thanks bluebell.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Obliviouslysubtle

ADD:

Ex: "Are you gonna eat that?"

And one day when I went to put on some pants that are not sweats but velour, so a little dressier, there was a big hole cut out of the bum, haha. Courtesy of my hubby. I actually thought it was funny at the time, he apparently didn't like me in them. 

 

First one is passive aggressive and the second aggressive aggressive.

No offense, but sounds like a jerk based on those two examples.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

First one is passive aggressive and the second aggressive aggressive.

No offense, but sounds like a jerk based on those two examples.

Yes, I do get after him when he says things rude about weight. We don't have a perfect marriage for sure. But there are some qualities that are super good too. This one is his definite hindrance. And I probably do stuff just as bad. 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Can you imagine any scenario in which all the items you seem to lament as being unfair actually turn out to be God’s will, and the most effectual way to organize and expand his kingdom? 

Nope. Oops, you weren’t asking me. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And one day when I went to put on some pants that are not sweats but velour, so a little dressier,

My opinion…not that attractive on anyone.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion…not that attractive on anyone.

They are not for looking at.

 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They are not for looking at.

 

If only.  😛 

https://www.today.com/shop/velour-fashion-trend-t242211

Quote

Stylists Abby Wood and Christina Stein aren't surprised by the return of the trend, and are embracing it with open arms. "I feel like [Covid-19] created this sweatsuit trend, this whole craze. And...it was only natural for this velour jumpsuit to resurface at some point," Wood told us.

"I was really pumped to see these tracksuits coming back because I was like ‘Wow, we’re really reclaiming our femininity and feeling put together but relaxed.’" Stein said. "I feel like people are putting more effort if they’re wearing those velour tracksuits."

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

My opinion…not that attractive on anyone.

I know but oh so comfortable, worn around the house. Or were you talking about my husband?

Edited May 11, 2022 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

On 2/26/2022 at 9:12 PM, kimpearson said:

I have been thinking about a number of issues that cause most of the faith crisis or hard discussions in the Church.  I have thought about Brad Wilcox's attempts to give explanations to those issues.  I have recently been listening to Jared Halverson's explanation of those issues.  In my opinion, neither Brad nor Jared, give explanations that in the following words of Joseph Smith tastes sweet.

"This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which are given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more." (King Follet sermon)

So I would like to present some of those issues, what I see as the facts the Church claims on the issue and my views.  Would you please share your views on the issue and how you find an explanation that "tastes good" to you.

Women and the priesthood

Facts -

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it

My views

• Women not being ordained to the priesthood appears to be the result of thousands of years of cultural indoctrination with no indication that God was ever behind it.
• Leaders of the Church don't dare change anything unless they get a revelation from God.  Only President Kimball appears to have been willing of recent prophets to put the work in to get such a revelation.
• Our cultural conditioning conditions us to believe that men and women could never function smoothly together is a bishopric, stake presidency or high council.
• A very significant portion of the male active members of the Church would really struggle if women were ordained to the priesthood.
• Other churches have demonstrated beyond any doubt that women are capable of leading congregations and church leadership.
• I am not comfortable and feel nothing sweet tasting with any explanation I have ever been given as to why true doctrine is that women shouldn't be ordained to the priesthood.

Your views

I would love to hear your views on this issue and how you find a sweet taste with any explanation that has been given.

 

More issues to come but let us address them one at a time.

In light of the above, I’m wondering if you find the following doctrinal teachings from the Apostle Paul to not be of God, even though 1 Corinthians 11 is left untouched in the Joseph Smith translation?

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11)

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

know but oh so comfortable, worn around the house. Or were you talking about my husband?

Take it whatever way that makes you laugh.  

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I do for the most part, thanks bluebell.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the above, I’m wondering if you find the following doctrinal teachings from the Apostle Paul to not be of God, even though 1 Corinthians 11 is left untouched in the Joseph Smith translation?

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11)

 

Christ put these away, he knew they were wrong. My opinion of course.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Take it whatever way that makes you laugh.  

😄

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the above, I’m wondering if you find the following doctrinal teachings from the Apostle Paul to not be of God, even though 1 Corinthians 11 is left untouched in the Joseph Smith translation?

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11)

 

So you believe women should have to wear hats or whatever to give opening and closing prayers or when giving a talk prophesying of Christ? How do you advocate for this change?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

My opinion…not that attractive on anyone.

You obviously haven’t seen me wearing it.

[Pyreaux]

On 2/26/2022 at 10:12 PM, kimpearson said:

Women and the priesthood

Facts -

• Women cannot be ordained to the priesthood
• Women cannot preside over any man in a priesthood calling
• Women cannot preside over a ward, stake, area or world as the final authority
• Women cannot perform priesthood ordinances with the exception of washing and anointings
• Women cannot perform priesthood blessings by anointing with consecrated oil
• Women cannot stand on the other side of the veil in the temple
• There is no revelation anywhere in any canonized scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no modern prophet who has ever said women cannot hold the priesthood
• There is no explanation anywhere of why women can't hold the priesthood
• There appears to be no effort by current prophets to get revelation on this matter
• Numerous changes have been made in recent years to give women a greater voice
• Numerous general authorities have explained that women have access to all the blessings of the priesthood but never attempt to explain why women can't be ordained to the priesthood
• Many women and young women who are members of the Church really struggle with all the above and feel pain related to it

Your views

I would love to hear your views on this issue and how you find a sweet taste with any explanation that has been given.

 

More issues to come but let us address them one at a time.

I believe all women participate in the priestly initiation rites, the day she is baptized she is becoming initiated. A woman is endowed in the same priestly robe and the anointed with the same anointing oil of any priest. If there was any doubt, when she is married, she has entered the "highest order of the priesthood". Like the Queens of old.

While women aren't called to serve and officiate in certain things, she is a Deaconess, a "help" to her priestly husband's calling, (for example a scribe to a Patriarch) and participates in initiating other women. The Female priestly order, the Relief Society, was organized "under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood". As a body are deaconesses, a "help" to the Priests. Semantics.

 

 

[Pyreaux]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the above, I’m wondering if you find the following doctrinal teachings from the Apostle Paul to not be of God, even though 1 Corinthians 11 is left untouched in the Joseph Smith translation?

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11)

 

I do believe the Church agrees with Paul on the importance of women wearing veils during certain religious "ordinances" (1 Cor 11:2) does it not? Paul claims its after the pattern of Eve and for the sake of not tempting the angels...

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I do believe the Church agrees with Paul on the importance of women wearing veils during certain religious "ordinances" (1 Cor 11:2) does it not? Paul claims its after the pattern of Eve and for the sake of not tempting the angels...

I agree. From the day I was first endowed in 1975, I knew immediately that this is precisely what Paul was referring to in these verses. And rather than imagining that these words of Paul speak to some unjust and outmoded traditions of a barbaric patriarchal past, they actually point to an unchangeable reality: that it is God’s will and design that men should preside in the home. But as long as there are those who insist on mingling the teachings of uninspired men and women with scripture there will be attempts to transform the Church to conform with the wisdom of a fallen, spiritually unenlightened world rather than adhere to the unalloyed word of God. Just look at the unmitigated mess we now have to live in because the “enlightened” modern world has strayed so far from the divinely ordained model of the traditional nuclear family. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by teddyaware

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

traditional nuclear family. 

The “nuclear family” wasn’t that traditional until relatively recently when a couple could afford to go off on their own and raise their children without the help of extended family.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm