The Problem w LDSMen

[rodheadlee]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So an alpha male and an alpha female would essentially be the same? (Trying to make sure I get what you are saying). 

Yes.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes.

I like that idea. That there are alpha personalities but it has nothing to do with gender.

(and I know that the term alpha has a lot of baggage behind it due to the “alpha male” culture on social media, but from my perspective that is more of a caricature of the term than an accurate description). 

Edited March 23, 2023 by bluebell

[Grug the Neanderthal]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:53 AM, Durangout said:

This was an excellent and important discussion.  It addresses so many issues that I see within our unique society.

Thoughts?

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

How many times have we heard statements like:

"Men have the priesthood and women don't because women are more righteous and spiritual than men and therefore men need the priesthood so they can learn to be as righteous and spiritual as the women?" 

"Women are naturality more Christlike, spiritual, and righteous than men."

"The only way men will make it to the Celestial Kingdom is due to their wives (who are so much more righteous and spiritual than they are) dragging or pushing them to get there."

And then we see the recent changes to the temple, which not only got rid of the covenant for wives to hearken to the council of their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, it also got rid of the curse upon Eve, while leaving the curse upon Adam for partaking of the forbidden fruit. And other language is changed from how it reads in the scriptures. Eve is no longer given to Adam and Eve is no longer Adam's helpmeet. The language in the sealing ceremony was also changed and the husbands role of leader and patriarch of the family was eliminated. 

Then there's the announcement that the Priesthood and Women's sessions of General Conference were being permanently retired and replaced with another general session. But then the very next conference the women's session was brought back. But now when it should be the Priesthood session, it's back to a General Session again. So apparently it's okay for women to have their own meeting, just not the men.  

The God given patriarchal order and placement of the husband as the head of his family and provider is being rapidly dismantled. In fact I would say that it's essentially gone now. Is it any wonder that this has effected many LDS men and caused them to become more apathetic and to take a back seat to their wives in their marriages and families?

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

How many times have we heard statements like:

"Men have the priesthood and women don't because women are more righteous and spiritual than men and therefore men need the priesthood so they can learn to be as righteous and spiritual as the women?" 

"Women are naturality more Christlike, spiritual, and righteous than men."

"The only way men will make it to the Celestial Kingdom is due to their wives (who are so much more righteous and spiritual than they are) dragging or pushing them to get there."

*skipping temple content*

Then there's the announcement that the Priesthood and Women's sessions of General Conference were being permanently retired and replaced with another general session. But then the very next conference the women's session was brought back. But now when it should be the Priesthood session, it's back to a General Session again. So apparently it's okay for women to have their own meeting, just not the men.  

The God given patriarchal order and placement of the husband as the head of his family and provider is being rapidly dismantled. In fact I would say that it's essentially gone now. Is it any wonder that this has effected many LDS men and caused them to become more apathetic and to take a back seat to their wives in their marriages and families?

I don’t think any of this is the cause of the overall problem. I would argue that the “women are more righteous” schtick which was popular a few decades ago but has been (thankfully) diminishing was more damaging to women since they were told they were innately spiritual and naturally drawn to righteousness so if a woman doesn’t have a strong sense of spirituality and is struggling with righteousness the hidden meaning is that there is something deeply wrong with her. And for many women it appeared to be patronizing and condescending.

The God-given patriarchal order is not an endorsement of the gender roles of 1950s Americana.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

One thing is certain if you have to describe yourself as an alpha male you are not one.

As I said I don’t think they exist at all and the idea is worthless as a category and we should really dump it as useless. We have plenty of descriptors to describe people who might fall under this nebulous category but we like this one why? The machismo? Or are we just drunk on action hero movies?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

How many times have we heard statements like:

"Men have the priesthood and women don't because women are more righteous and spiritual than men and therefore men need the priesthood so they can learn to be as righteous and spiritual as the women?" 

I agree this never should have been said.  I don't believe it is true.  But I also don't think I've ever heard it in conference, church materials etc.  Only from people in my ward or stake.  That doesn't make it true by any means, but it is important to know it's not coming from the church.  If you have a quote then I'm happy to change my opinion on that and state that I have missed it - not calling for references, just willing to be wrong if I missed it.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

"Women are naturality more Christlike, spiritual, and righteous than men."

"The only way men will make it to the Celestial Kingdom is due to their wives (who are so much more righteous and spiritual than they are) dragging or pushing them to get there."

And then we see the recent changes to the temple, which not only got rid of the covenant for wives to hearken to the council of their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, it also got rid of the curse upon Eve, while leaving the curse upon Adam for partaking of the forbidden fruit.

Does it actually say Adam was cursed? 

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And other language is changed from how it reads in the scriptures.

 

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Eve is no longer given to Adam

Which is good.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

and Eve is no longer Adam's helpmeet. The language in the sealing ceremony was also changed and the husbands role of leader and patriarch of the family was eliminated. 

Which is good.  Marriage should be on an equal level.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Then there's the announcement that the Priesthood and Women's sessions of General Conference were being permanently retired and replaced with another general session. But then the very next conference the women's session was brought back. But now when it should be the Priesthood session, it's back to a General Session again.

Yes, this has been odd.  The fact that they announce the change each time makes me wonder if either they just can't make up their mind or that it will be different each time according to prayers. It will be interesting to see if there is a pattern.  So far I'm not seeing one.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

 

So apparently it's okay for women to have their own meeting, just not the men.  

The God given patriarchal order and placement of the husband as the head of his family and provider is being rapidly dismantled. In fact I would say that it's essentially gone now. Is it any wonder that this has effected many LDS men and caused them to become more apathetic and to take a back seat to their wives in their marriages and families?

 

There is a huge difference in taking a backseat and making them equal.  Women have had a back seat in the church for more than 100 years.  So far what I'm seeing is not enough experience to show that with conference yet to come to that conclusion yet. And I would have to listen to the changes about Adam being cursed and not Eve before I make a conclusion on that.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Rain

[Dario_M]

Well...like i have said earlyer... i have watched to whole video from begin to end. And i find it offensive. Against woman (allthough some womans don't seem to realise that). Against gay people (like ME). Against just..... all the other aspects as well. And it is harmfull for the image of our church (what i also represents as a Mormon guy (gay). A member of the LDS church.)

I don't need to be musculer. I can't even believe the absurtity of it. But it will def be a conversation in my church for the comming sunday. Because i'm dying to talk about this with my fellow church members. For all the womans outhere who like's this kinda stuff, and who finds it attractive that a man is a "real man" (jerk), and who stays in a relationship with that kind of a "real man" (jerk in my opinion)  i just wanna say...what's wrong with you. 🤦‍♂️

Edited March 23, 2023 by Dario_M

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

How many times have we heard statements like:

"Men have the priesthood and women don't because women are more righteous and spiritual than men and therefore men need the priesthood so they can learn to be as righteous and spiritual as the women?" 

"Women are naturality more Christlike, spiritual, and righteous than men."

"The only way men will make it to the Celestial Kingdom is due to their wives (who are so much more righteous and spiritual than they are) dragging or pushing them to get there."

And then we see the recent changes to the temple, which not only got rid of the covenant for wives to hearken to the council of their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, it also got rid of the curse upon Eve, while leaving the curse upon Adam for partaking of the forbidden fruit. And other language is changed from how it reads in the scriptures. Eve is no longer given to Adam and Eve is no longer Adam's helpmeet. The language in the sealing ceremony was also changed and the husbands role of leader and patriarch of the family was eliminated. 

Then there's the announcement that the Priesthood and Women's sessions of General Conference were being permanently retired and replaced with another general session. But then the very next conference the women's session was brought back. But now when it should be the Priesthood session, it's back to a General Session again. So apparently it's okay for women to have their own meeting, just not the men.  

The God given patriarchal order and placement of the husband as the head of his family and provider is being rapidly dismantled. In fact I would say that it's essentially gone now. Is it any wonder that this has effected many LDS men and caused them to become more apathetic and to take a back seat to their wives in their marriages and families?

 

I think the changes can give a member whiplash. I think most men in the church are wonderful, and I don't think women are better spiritually or otherwise. My mom would say during the women's equality protests that women don't need the priesthood but men do, since women give birth and have that special gift. Something like that. Or that men need the priesthood to compete or align, don't know where she was going really. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Well...like i have said earlyer... i have watched to whole video from begin to end. And i find it offensive. Against woman (allthough some womans don't seem to realise that). Against gay people (like ME). Against just..... all the other aspects as well. And it is harmfull for the image of our church (what i also represents as a Mormon guy (gay). A member of the LDS church.)

I don't need to be musculer. I can't even believe the absurtity of it. But it will def be a conversation in my church for the comming sunday. Because i'm dying to talk about this with my fellow church members. For all the womans outhere who like's this kinda stuff, and who finds it attractive that a man is a "real man" (jerk), and who stays in a relationship with that kind of a "real man" (jerk in my opinion)  i just wanna say...what's wrong with you. 🤦‍♂️

I haven’t heard any women posters on here who don’t find the video problematic. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

I also don't think I've ever heard it in conference, church materials etc.  Only from people in my ward or stake. 

The fact that so many people (including leaders) in wards and stakes feel comfortable in openly stating that women are so much more righteous, spiritual, and Christlike than men is a problem. I doubt that the specific priesthood comment has ever been said in conference or in official church materials, but it is said at church. I’ve heard it multiple times from men and women without ever being corrected. I bet we could find instances in conference and church materials were someone has suggested that women are naturally more righteous, spiritual, and Christlike than men.

I've also heard women and men in church making fun of men and stating that men are stupid and helpless compared to their wives, or similar things. 

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Does it actually say Adam was cursed? 

Yes, the curse put upon Adam in the scriptures and in the endowment of yesteryear for partaking of the forbidden fruit is still presented in the temple, but there is no longer any curse put upon Eve. 

7 hours ago, Rain said:

And other language is changed from how it reads in the scriptures.

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Which is good.

No, it’s not good in my opinion. We shouldn’t be changing covenants and teachings in the temple from what is taught in the scriptures. We shouldn’t be changing the covenant relationship between husband and wife and role of the husband and father in 2019 from what it has always been. 

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, this has been odd

If this were the other way around with a priesthood session be reinstated but no women's session, there would be an uproar about sexism and inequality. But since the men are getting the shaft, no one bats an eye. 

Same goes for the other things. If the kinds of disparaging comments about inferiority that are made at church about men, where instead made about women, there would be an uproar. But since it’s the men, no one bats an eye.

And if covenants and teachings were changed to reduce the role of women and mothers from being the leader or matriarch of the family, this would undoubtedly lead to them being more apathetic and confused about their role, which would weaken marriages and families. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

bet we could find instances in conference and church materials were someone has suggested that women are naturally more righteous, spiritual, and Christlike than men.

Please find them. 
 

I find it highly problematic to label one sex as inherently more righteous than the other, so I am interested in how problematic it is. Is it more a grass roots thing or from head to toe.  If you can find it in conference or in materials, it is even more concerning imo. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the changes can give a member whiplash.

Agreed. The changes have been so rapid that I think it has left many members wondering what in the world is going on and what their role is and what is expected of them. I think that this is especially the case for men and those members (men and women) who liked how things were before and hold traditional views. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Please find them. 

I will take a look and see what I can find, but perhaps you could help me out. I’ve heard that you are an expert at finding information quickly on the internet. 

[Dario_M]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven’t heard any women posters on here who don’t find the video problematic. 

Well...i have a differend kind of image. I see a lot of female's that seems they like the video. Or they just wanna bal-ance it...that one whas a funny one i readed yesterday evening from somebody. Right bevore i whas heading of to dreamland. I whas so tired. But you know what.. that is their choice. That's fine if they really feel like that is okay.

But besides of the females here there is also me. I'm gay. I feel offended. That i need to be a real musculinity man otherwise, otherwise i'm not even a man at all. And i can't be my own self. The real reason i can't be myself is more because i feel judge...that i'm not follow the law of chastity. That i don't have enough knowlege and theirfor i may noy have my own opinions. I'm not from US. That i'm slow with my priesterhood is also something my church doesn't appriciate. I struggle with my English as well. Etc. 

But let me tell you one thing. I Maybe may not have the right amound of knowlege, lack of following the LOC, not from US, no priesterhood yet, poor English spelling. But i'm also a Mormon. Just like you guys. We are aquel. If people like it or not. But we are really aquel. I'm a Mormon. A member of the LDS church. And for that i may also have my opinion. Heaven yeah! And i will stand for myself and my opinions, here on the forum but also in rl in my ward. I stand for myself and for myself being gay as well. I feel like i also have a voice and i may use that voice. That i'm gay is okay. That i don't follow the LOC is also okay. I will stand for myself and i will always be a member of the church of later day saints. Always. No matter what. I wanna spread awareness about some things that (in my opinion) needs to change (like this topic and the whole discussion i heard on the video for example.) Because i am who i am and everybody (also gay people, black people, and females) should feel save in the church. And should be allowed to be theirselfs. And you know what...this sunday i will discuss this in the church as well. All of what i am saying right now..... all these thoughts loud and clear in my ward. Because it just needs to be heard. I'm who i am. I'm guy i can't change that. And i don't wanna get placed into a corner where i need to do this or i need to do that. Or where i need to be a real man. A musculinity man. Basicaly just a jerk. I won't allow that. I am who i am. A gay male. That is me.

#I'MME. 

I needed to get this from my chest.

Have a nice day. 

 

[Raingirl]

12 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I will take a look and see what I can find, but perhaps you could help me out. I’ve heard that you are an expert at finding information quickly on the internet. 

You made the claim, you need to do the work to back it up. 

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The fact that so many people (including leaders) in wards and stakes feel comfortable in openly stating that women are so much more righteous, spiritual, and Christlike than men is a problem. I doubt that the specific priesthood comment has ever been said in conference or in official church materials, but it is said at church. I’ve heard it multiple times from men and women without ever being corrected. I bet we could find instances in conference and church materials were someone has suggested that women are naturally more righteous, spiritual, and Christlike than men.

I've also heard women and men in church making fun of men and stating that men are stupid and helpless compared to their wives, or similar things. 

Well, I for one (and there are many others) put that idea down when I hear it. On a general level it isn't true and is hurtful and on a personal level with my sons and husband even more so.  It has bothered me for decades so I would be a little surprised to see a conference talk saying that though there are many conference talks where the leader puts his wife on a pedestal.

 

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, the curse put upon Adam in the scriptures and in the endowment of yesteryear for partaking of the forbidden fruit is still presented in the temple, but there is no longer any curse put upon Eve. 

 

I'm not asking about it being presented, but calling it an actual "curse". Depending on how it works we could view it very differently.

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, it’s not good in my opinion. We shouldn’t be changing covenants and teachings in the temple from what is taught in the scriptures.

I get that we disagree on that. As a woman who has felt like she was in a lesser position in my marriage according to what went on in the temple I disagree that we should keep things that put me in that position. I'm grateful my husband has always been on the same level with me despite what the temple had.

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

We shouldn’t be changing the covenant relationship between husband and wife and role of the husband and father in 2019 from what it has always been. 

I feel it put women in the position of a child to her husband so I'm good with this change.

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If this were the other way around with a priesthood session be reinstated but no women's session, there would be an uproar about sexism and inequality. 

Maybe. But like I said, there isn't enough to establish a pattern yet.

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

But since the men are getting the shaft, no one bats an eye. 

Actually it has been talked about, but usually it's been relief with many of the men including my husband and son. There has also been much talk about the ages of the girls attending which has sometimes through the years been different than with the men.  

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Same goes for the other things. If the kinds of disparaging comments about inferiority that are made at church about men, where instead made about women, there would be an uproar. But since it’s the men, no one bats an eye.

MANY women do bat an eye at disparaging men comments even right here on this forum.  The weird thing is when men fight against that and tell how women are more spiritual. 

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And if covenants and teachings were changed to reduce the role of women and mothers from being the leader or matriarch of the family, this would undoubtedly lead to them being more apathetic and confused about their role, which would weaken marriages and families. 

It only reduces the men if the women were on an uneven ground to begin with and you bring the man down.  Personally, I don't feel it reduces the men.  In lifts the women to stand beside them.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Rain

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Well...i have a differend kind of image. I see a lot of female's that seems they like the video. Or they just wanna bal-ance it...that one whas a funny one i readed yesterday evening from somebody. Right bevore i whas heading of to dreamland. I whas so tired. But you know what.. that is their choice. That's fine if they really feel like that is okay.

But besides of the females here there is also me. I'm gay. I feel offended. That i need to be a real musculinity man otherwise, otherwise i'm not even a man at all. And i can't be my own self. The real reason i can't be myself is more because i feel judge...that i'm not follow the law of chastity. That i don't have enough knowlege and theirfor i may noy have my own opinions. I'm not from US. That i'm slow with my priesterhood is also something my church doesn't appriciate. I struggle with my English as well. Etc. 

But let me tell you one thing. I Maybe may not have the right amound of knowlege, lack of following the LOC, not from US, no priesterhood yet, poor English spelling. But i'm also a Mormon. Just like you guys. We are aquel. If people like it or not. But we are really aquel. I'm a Mormon. A member of the LDS church. And for that i may also have my opinion. Heaven yeah! And i will stand for myself and my opinions, here on the forum but also in rl in my ward. I stand for myself and for myself being gay as well. I feel like i also have a voice and i may use that voice. That i'm gay is okay. That i don't follow the LOC is also okay. I will stand for myself and i will always be a member of the church of later day saints. Always. No matter what. I wanna spread awareness about some things that (in my opinion) needs to change (like this topic and the whole discussion i heard on the video for example.) Because i am who i am and everybody (also gay people, black people, and females) should feel save in the church. And should be allowed to be theirselfs. And you know what...this sunday i will discuss this in the church as well. All of what i am saying right now..... all these thoughts loud and clear in my ward. Because it just needs to be heard. I'm who i am. I'm guy i can't change that. And i don't wanna get placed into a corner where i need to do this or i need to do that. Or where i need to be a real man. A musculinity man. Basicaly just a jerk. I won't allow that. I am who i am. A gay male. That is me.

#I'MME. 

I needed to get this from my chest.

Have a nice day. 

 

I am sorry for saying this if it offends. I just worry that some things are better said outside of Sunday worship. Just didn't want anything happening to you as far as members becoming uneasy with something taking away from what the lesson material is about. But if it is somewhat linked to these feelings, then yes I think that would work as long as you say it with the spirit. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

16 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

You made the claim, you need to do the work to back it up. 

Nah, I said I bet. That’s an opinion, not a claim. 

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am sorry for saying this if it offends. I just worry that some things are better said outside of Sunday worship. Just didn't want anything happening to you as far as members becoming uneasy with something taking away from what the lesson material is about. But if it is somewhat linked to these feelings, then yes I think that would work as long as you say it with the spirit. 

Abselutely. With the spirit. I will also talk about this video that i have seen. I have seen the whole thing you know. It's still fresh on my mind. 

[manol]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't watch the video, but here is what I see as a major issue for LDS men. For some time now men in the church have been steadily given the message that they are inferior to women and that their traditional (and scriptural) roll as the patriarch and leader of the family (and within the church) is wrong and outdated.

I no longer attend church so am not up to date on exactly what is or is not being said, but I doubt what you are describing is church doctrine. 

But something I did notice back in the late 80's/early 90's is that the endowment ceremony can be interpreted as implying that women are already priestesses.  If this sort of thing might interest you let me know and I'll go into as much detail as I think I can (respecting what I believe the boundaries of temple content conversation to be).   Not that this is "church doctrine" either! 

edit:  Dario if you would like to explain your immediately downvoting this post, I'd like to know your reasoning.  Do you disagree, or did it offend you in some way?  Or if you'd rather not tell me, that's okay too.

Edited March 23, 2023 by manol

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

there are many conference talks where the leader puts his wife on a pedestal.

Bingo

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

calling it an actual "curse"

I just did an endowment session last week. It’s still called a curse.

As for the rest, we’ll have to agree to disagree, I guess. 

 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please find them. 
 

I find it highly problematic to label one sex as inherently more righteous than the other, so I am interested in how problematic it is. Is it more a grass roots thing or from head to toe.  If you can find it in conference or in materials, it is even more concerning imo. 

Some of his concerns are cultural and not tied to the church.

The concept of the idiot/childish husband and the long-suffering wife who has to put up with him is a common trope in our popular TV shows and movies.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Well...i have a differend kind of image. I see a lot of female's that seems they like the video. Or they just wanna bal-ance it...that one whas a funny one i readed yesterday evening from somebody. Right bevore i whas heading of to dreamland. I whas so tired. But you know what.. that is their choice. That's fine if they really feel like that is okay.

But besides of the females here there is also me. I'm gay. I feel offended. That i need to be a real musculinity man otherwise, otherwise i'm not even a man at all. And i can't be my own self. The real reason i can't be myself is more because i feel judge...that i'm not follow the law of chastity. That i don't have enough knowlege and theirfor i may noy have my own opinions. I'm not from US. That i'm slow with my priesterhood is also something my church doesn't appriciate. I struggle with my English as well. Etc. 

But let me tell you one thing. I Maybe may not have the right amound of knowlege, lack of following the LOC, not from US, no priesterhood yet, poor English spelling. But i'm also a Mormon. Just like you guys. We are aquel. If people like it or not. But we are really aquel. I'm a Mormon. A member of the LDS church. And for that i may also have my opinion. Heaven yeah! And i will stand for myself and my opinions, here on the forum but also in rl in my ward. I stand for myself and for myself being gay as well. I feel like i also have a voice and i may use that voice. That i'm gay is okay. That i don't follow the LOC is also okay. I will stand for myself and i will always be a member of the church of later day saints. Always. No matter what. I wanna spread awareness about some things that (in my opinion) needs to change (like this topic and the whole discussion i heard on the video for example.) Because i am who i am and everybody (also gay people, black people, and females) should feel save in the church. And should be allowed to be theirselfs. And you know what...this sunday i will discuss this in the church as well. All of what i am saying right now..... all these thoughts loud and clear in my ward. Because it just needs to be heard. I'm who i am. I'm guy i can't change that. And i don't wanna get placed into a corner where i need to do this or i need to do that. Or where i need to be a real man. A musculinity man. Basicaly just a jerk. I won't allow that. I am who i am. A gay male. That is me.

#I'MME. 

I needed to get this from my chest.

Have a nice day. 

 

Of course, you can have an opinion Dario, but it might be helpful to remember that this is a dialogue and discussion forum. We post our opinions so that we can discuss them with other posters.

if you post a thought or an opinion, other people are going to comment on it because that is the whole purpose of the message board.

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

Well, I for one (and there are many others) put that idea down when I hear it. On a general level it isn't true and is hurtful and on a personal level with my sons and husband even more so.  It has bothered me for decades so I would be a little surprised to see a conference talk saying that though there are many conference talks where the leader puts his wife on a pedestal.

 

I'm not asking about it being presented, but calling it an actual "curse". Depending on how it works we could view it very differently.

I get that we disagree on that. As a woman who has felt like she was in a lesser position in my marriage according to what went on in the temple I disagree that we should keep things that put me in that position. I'm grateful my husband has always been on the same level with me despite what the temple had.

I feel it put women in the position of a child to her husband so I'm good with this change.

Maybe. But like I said, there isn't enough to establish a pattern yet.

Actually it has been talked about, but usually it's been relief with many of the men including my husband and son. There has also been much talk about the ages of the girls attending which has sometimes through the years been different than with the men.  

MANY women do bat an eye at disparaging men comments even right here on this forum.  The weird thing is when men fight against that and tell how women are more spiritual. 

It only reduces the men if the women were on an uneven ground to begin with and you bring the man down.  Personally, I don't feel it reduces the men.  In lifts the women to stand beside them.

100% And I think the temple is like a vehicle to God, or put in place by Joseph, not really handed down by God, temple wording, for Joseph. And it is interesting how evolution has happened, the early civil ceremonies (wedding) would say obey thy husband. 

https://wanderlustbay.com/traditional-wedding-vows/ 

And thank goodness the church can evolve as well. The first time I heard I'd need to obey my husband (80's) in the temple, I was totally side swiped by it. But the new changes are good, kind of makes one worry that this is all man made stuff but it probably is. So just as the world has evolved to make women equal to men, churches should do it as well. Heck in the 70's and before women couldn't have a credit card in their name!

Also, this link:  https://fatherkaput.livejournal.com/13174.html I'm almost sure Joseph gleaned from when forming the temple ceremonies. 

I apologize in advance for the long response. I understand your concern about the word "obey" in the vows for the woman.  It does indeed go against the grain of what is commonly promoted in our society.  Give me a chance to explain why it is that way.  The reason that "obey" is in the vows for the woman, but not the man, is rooted in the passage from Ephesians 5:21-33.  You see, in the Christian teaching on marriage, the relationship between the man and the woman is a picture or image of the relationship between Christ and His Church.  As you know, Christ is the head of the Church (His Bride) and the Church is to submit to or obey the Word of Christ.  St. Paul draws this connection in the Ephesians 5 passage, and there is also more imagery of Christ as the groom and the Church as the Bride in the book of Revelation.  Therefore in marriage, the husband is considered the head (not only of the wife, but of the household), so the wife is to submit to him as the Church submits to Christ. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Tacenda

[Dario_M]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course, you can have an opinion Dario, but it might be helpful to remember that this is a dialogue and discussion forum. We post our opinions so that we can discuss them with other posters.

if you post a thought or an opinion, other people are going to comment on it because that is the whole purpose of the message board.

But i didn't even complain about that. But it would be also nice if we all go.....you know....keep it a little ontopic. But i'm not a mod. So a moderator may decide about that offcourse.