The Savior's Restored Gospel and feminism

[Calm]

23 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Remember, facts over feelings and reals over feels = effective positions and arguments.

Okay.  Perhaps you are not patronizing, but only rather unaware.

I back Rain’s comment.  Let’s see the facts you have on this.  Something besides your feels of being unsatisfied the RS isn’t doing chairs and moving.

How is this not pure speculation?  And likely based on feelings, perhaps you feel protective towards a woman you love and would do the same, so you assume other men would do the same even if you have no personal knowledge of them and apparently little knowledge of their culture given certain of your comments.

Quote

it seems to me the Bible and BoM prophets didn't write much about thier wives just as Heavenly Father protects His - out of respect, from scorn, mocking, and derision. 

The whole “women are more spiritual” is a feeling conclusion.  You feel what women do is more spiritual, but is not Captain Moroni, a soldier, seen as a spiritual giant?  A willingness to use violence can be spiritually motivated and a willingness to attend church and be actively involved there can be motivated by non spiritual reasons, such as a desire to socialize.  Without knowing the personal reasons for behaviours, labeling them spiritual or secular is logically premature and when people do it, it is most likely based on how they feel about the behaviour and not facts.

Women in our culture have in the past been more religious than men, but while there is overlap religiousity is not identical to spirituality. And there are cultures where there are higher numbers of men attending church, known for saying more prayers and studying scriptures is a very male activity.   So it does not appear women are inherently more religious than men, that is culturally dependent. 
 

And look, I have something more than just my feelings to back my claims!  

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/03/23/qa-why-are-women-generally-more-religious-than-men/

“The study finds that women are generally – but not universally – more religious than men in several ways. Indeed, data collected for the study show that in some religions and some contexts, men are as, or even more, religious than women.”

”One of the most striking findings in a new Pew Research Center analysis of survey and census data on gender and religion is that while Christian women are on the whole more religious than Christian men, Muslim women and Muslim men have similar levels of religious commitment. And when it comes to attendance at worship services, Muslim men are more active than Muslim women”

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/03/24/a-religious-gender-gap-for-christians-but-not-for-muslims/

Edited September 4, 2023 by Calm

[Smiley McGee]

On 9/2/2023 at 4:41 PM, nuclearfuels said:

The gospel implies that men need the priesthood to grow and develop spiritually

 

On 9/3/2023 at 8:29 AM, nuclearfuels said:

Are you familiar with crime statistics? or human bioology perhaps (testosterone, adrenaline, anger and the like and its prevalence between genders)?

So God puts his least spiritual, most violent/aggressive gender of children in charge so that they “learn and grow”? This growth and development isn’t possible under the leadership of a more spiritual, less violent gender? 

[Nofear]

On 9/2/2023 at 9:03 PM, Rain said:

2.  Men are just as spiritual as women.  We may show it differently (just like each person shows it differently), but I grow weary of telling others to quit putting the men in my family down with the "women are more spiritual" untruth.

I, as many others already have, quite agree with this sentiment. I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons the men carry a larger administrative burden in running the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Church is because of those differences in spiritual expression and/or the differences in spiritual expression in a family setting. That proper and Christlike administration it the Church helps train out some of the aspects of the "natural man" that are biologically more biased towards men. That sentiment probably would carry less agreement among people though and I personally only hold to the idea as a tentative hypothesis.

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

 

So God puts his least spiritual, most violent/aggressive gender of children in charge so that they “learn and grow”? This growth and development isn’t possible under the leadership of a more spiritual, less violent gender? 

It also means that God has put His weaker gender at the mercy of His most violent gender, not just physically but also theologically, giving the less spiritual and more violent gender not just the means to mistreat the other gender, but also the "justification" for doing so.

That would be really messed up if it were true.  Thank goodness it's not.

[Rain]

47 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I, as many others already have, quite agree with this sentiment. I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons the men carry a larger administrative burden in running the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Church is because of those differences in spiritual expression and/or the differences in spiritual expression in a family setting. That proper and Christlike administration it the Church helps train out some of the aspects of the "natural man" that are biologically more biased towards men. That sentiment probably would carry less agreement among people though and I personally only hold to the idea as a tentative hypothesis.

I can appreciate it as a tentative hypothesis.  I don't know that I agree with the idea as you assumed many would not (I can see a few problems with that idea, but at the moment I am just at a "I don't know" state about a lot of things), but I appreciate that you don't hold it as definitely true. 

[ksfisher]

On 9/2/2023 at 5:41 PM, nuclearfuels said:

[women] do not need to be guilted, pressured, etc. to take care of thier kids, family, home, etc. while men in general must be told these things

Biologically, women and men perform different roles in propagating our species.  In general, the role of women is to care for and nurture children, while that of men is to protect and provide for the children as well as the women who are raising them.  There are many other species outside the primate family that have similar divisions of labor.  To argue that one of these roles is superior to the other ignores the importance of both in the survival of any species.  These roles are ingrained in us by evolution.

This is how things are in the telestial world.

The gospel does invite us to look beyond the telestial and try and act in a celestial manner.  How the roles of men and women in a celestial environment will differ from those what we experience now is something to look forward to.

[Calm]

I wonder how many men would be more likely to be involved in child care if it was promoted as a very manly thing to do.

My husband did as much as me to care for and play with the kids when he was home.  He takes the grandkids to games and on trips whenever he can.  Planning big things when he is retired.

I know a number of women who are awkward around kids in the home, even when professionally they are teachers and child care specialists. 

If you dropped a man who had no exposure to children and a woman who had no exposure where they had both been around adults all their lives into a room with a couple of babies and no one else but an gender free instruction manual, I wonder if it would that different.  There are a lot of stories about new moms struggling, especially if from small families.  It is not something that is all that instinctual or we wouldn’t need to be teaching women to be better mothers.

In the past girls and young women participated under the eye of older women in taking care of younger children, while the boys after some years with their mothers went off with their dad and guy friends.  Of course a situation like that would appear that young mothers just knew what to do, but of course they did having watched their moms and other women raise children all of their lives.

Not saying there isn’t a biological difference in raising children.  I am saying we can’t know if there is (my guess is given the hormonal changes of pregnancy and nursing there likely is) and we definitely don’t know how great of a difference there is if there is one.  Being physically tied to children doesn’t automatically mean one is emotionally tied or mentally inclined to be with children.  A number of women when they have the choice go for nannies rather than caring for their own, for example.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Calm

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It also means that God has put His weaker gender at the mercy of His most violent gender, not just physically but also theologically, giving the less spiritual and more violent gender not just the means to mistreat the other gender, but also the "justification" for doing so.

That would be really messed up if it were true.  Thank goodness it's not.

I'm not so sure that you're not closer to the truth than you realize here.  Could God not have created women to be larger and stronger than men?  In some species females are larger than the males.

While I don't believe that either sex is more spiritual than the other, it does seem arguable that men are more physically violent than women.  To me that derives from the male role as protector.  It then becomes the males responsibility to use that physical superiority responsibly. 

It has also been shown in many species that the female partner has a great deal of influence over the male.  I recalling reading about how a barely perceptible head nod by a female Mallard will send the male off chasing away other Mallard that she perceives as threats.  Females also have a responsibility to use their ability to influence males responsibly. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by ksfisher

[manol]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It also means that God has put His weaker gender at the mercy of His most violent gender, not just physically but also theologically, giving the less spiritual and more violent gender not just the means to mistreat the other gender, but also the "justification" for doing so.

That would be really messed up if it were true.  Thank goodness it's not.

Not that my opinion counts in any of this, but as you can see from the length of this post, that isn't stopping me from expressing it.

Imo: Women have motherhood and men have fatherhood; men have priesthood and women have priestesshood.

I think Joseph Smith was on his way to formalizing priestesshood but was killed before he got around to it. On 28 April of 1842 he gave a sermon to the Female Relief Society in which he began teaching the sisters how they would “come into possession of the gifts of the priesthood” (← this is a paraphrase based on my memory of Joseph Smith's journal entry as found in History of the Church). This is the sermon wherein he approved of and defended the practice of women giving blessings and gave instructions to the sisters on the specifics of how to do so, which unfortunately are not included in the records we have of the meeting (to the best of my knowledge).

I think that authority before God (priesthood) and ecclesiastical leadership being limited to males in the Church is cultural and has nothing to do with God's will. I think it gets defended because of the disturbing implications for the belief system, and not because it somehow does not violate the fundamental principle that all are alike unto God, and that God is no respecter of persons.

My understanding is that the Church's shutting down of the practice of women giving blessings stems from rivalry with fundamentalist polygamist groups in the early 20^th century. The fundamentalists pointed to women giving blessings as evidence that the Church's “priesthood line of authority is essential” paradigm wasn't substantiated by God being constrained to acting within priesthood lines of authority.  So the Church bolstered its position by effectively discontinuing the practice of women giving blessings.  Imo now would be a good time to correct this mistake. 

Twice that I can think of the Church did a complete reversal on a controversial topic, resulting in better alignment with the fundamental principle that “God is no respecter of persons” and “all are alike unto God”. So I have hopes that on this and at least one other topic the Church will make inspired major course-correction towards better alignment with a God who is no respecter of persons, and in whose eyes all are alike.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by manol

[Buckeye]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

I, as many others already have, quite agree with this sentiment. I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons the men carry a larger administrative burden in running the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Church is because of those differences in spiritual expression and/or the differences in spiritual expression in a family setting. That proper and Christlike administration it the Church helps train out some of the aspects of the "natural man" that are biologically more biased towards men. That sentiment probably would carry less agreement among people though and I personally only hold to the idea as a tentative hypothesis.

It’s not that complicated in my view. The reason men traditionally carry the bigger church administration burden is because women traditionally carry a much, much heavier domestic burden due to pregnancy, nursing, and child care. Just look at the different lived experiences of Joseph and Emma. Both were very spiritually attuned and administratively gifted. But Joseph was not constantly pregnant for his adult life. 

Today, we have an abundance of blessings from God never before available - contraception, education, lifespans well beyond the end of menopause, elevated expectations for fathers to raise children alongside their wives, and many others. These blessings have opened up wonderful possibilities for women to serve with men in administration of the church. Advances are sometimes slow to come, but the overall direction is clear. The restoration of the fullness of the gospel leads to the opening of all good things to women - which blesses both women and men. 

FWIW, I recommend talking to the youth about how they envision women’s roles in the eternities. Spoiler: it’s not endless pregnancy as (many) members thought in days passed.  It’s much more akin to Ruth Renlund than to Emma Smith.
 

Personally, I believe pregnancy, nursing, etc are only mortal experiences. Spirit children are not created ex nihilo but adopted as Joseph taught in the sermon in the grove (aka KFD). The lived experiences of women and men will be identical in all important ways in the eternities. That’s why a male Christ can serve as the image of salvation for both men and women. The attributes of salvation are the same - and equally available - to all. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Biologically, women and men perform different roles in propagating our species.  In general, the role of women is to care for and nurture children, while that of men is to protect and provide for the children as well as the women who are raising them.  There are many other species outside the primate family that have similar divisions of labor.  To argue that one of these roles is superior to the other ignores the importance of both in the survival of any species.  These roles are ingrained in us by evolution.

This is fundamentally wrong. The idea that men have always been the providers is countered by just about all of recorded history. Having your wife not have to work was throughout most of human history a luxury afforded to the wealthy. Naturally as more people got wealthy they took up the practice as a sign of their wealth. In the past roughly 80-90% of the population were involved in agriculture and both men and women worked in that role. Yes, women did tend to take care of the very young children and often took up work that allowed them to feed young children but that is primarily because women lactate. But that is more about convenience than being some hard-coded biological imperative.

Many Church leaders (and lots of other people) love to pretend that early 20th century American and Western European norms are some eternal law but they just aren’t.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

FWIW, I recommend talking to the youth about how they envision women’s roles in the eternities. Spoiler: it’s not endless pregnancy as (many) members thought in days passed.  It’s much more akin to Ruth Renlund than to Emma Smith.

This statement intrigues me because Ruth Renlund has a career that is outside and separate from her child (and more power to her, I don't think there is a thing wrong with that), but how would that work in the Celestial Kingdom? 

We are told that God's whole entire purpose (His work and His glory) is centered on His children.  He doesn't have another "job" (if the scriptures are telling the truth on that).   Do we believe something different about our Heavenly Mother?  If women's roles in the eternities matched Sis. Renlund's more than Emma's, would that mean that while our Heavenly Father is completely and solely 'raising' His spirit children, our Heavenly Mother works outside of the home (so to speak) and has other focuses?

 

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This statement intrigues me because Ruth Renlund has a career that is outside and separate from her child (and more power to her, I don't think there is a thing wrong with that), but how would that work in the Celestial Kingdom? 

We are told that God's whole entire purpose (His work and His glory) is centered on His children.  He doesn't have another "job" (if the scriptures are telling the truth on that).   Do we believe something different about our Heavenly Mother?  If women's roles in the eternities matched Sis. Renlund's more than Emma's, would that mean that while our Heavenly Father is completely and solely 'raising' His spirit children, our Heavenly Mother works outside of the home (so to speak) and has other focuses?

 

No. The focus for all heavenly parents is the same. The difference is the status of the “children.”  

Ruth’s career outside the home “raised” God’s children in just as meaningful a way as the traditional stay at home mother (or father). It’s just that most of those she blessed were not minors but children who could feed and care for themselves - what we call “adults.” This work is similar to Christ who, during his ministry, raised up his followers, most of whom were adults. 
 

I don’t see the raising of spirit children as having much of anything to do with diapers, teething, bottle feeding or the other myriad growth events we experience during a mortal childhood and which are traditionally associated with motherhood. Those are valuable, certainly, and I’ve derived much joy from them with my children. But celestial parenthood is directed at spirits who don’t need potty training and don’t reside in one home for 18 years. It’s more akin to what my own mother provides now to her adult children. 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Buckeye said:

No. The focus for all heavenly parents is the same. The difference is the status of the “children.”  

Ruth’s career outside the home “raised” God’s children in just as meaningful a way as the traditional stay at home mother (or father). It’s just that most of those she blessed were not minors but children who could feed and care for themselves - what we call “adults.” This work is similar to Christ who, during his ministry, raised up his followers, most of whom were adults. 
 

I don’t see the raising of spirit children as having much of anything to do with diapers, teething, bottle feeding or the other myriad growth events we experience during a mortal childhood and which are traditionally associated with motherhood. Those are valuable, certainly, and I’ve derived much joy from them with my children. But celestial parenthood is directed at spirits who don’t need potty training and don’t reside in one home for 18 years. It’s more akin to what my own mother provides now to her adult children. 

But none of those children were her own, and that's where I'm finding your example to be confusing.  How does working outside the home with beings who aren't your children work with the Celestial kingdom?

Maybe it's because my children haven't been in the diapers, teething, and bottle stages for a lot time, but that's not what I first think of when I think of motherhood.  My kids are older (some out of the house) and I'm still very much their mother and I still function in that role.  So I guess I don't see celestial parenthood as being all that different from what I'm doing now (except in scope and knowledge of course).

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But none of those children were her own, and that's where I'm finding your example to be confusing.  How does working outside the home with beings who aren't your children work with the Celestial kingdom?

Maybe it's because my children haven't been in the diapers, teething, and bottle stages for a lot time, but that's not what I first think of when I think of motherhood.  My kids are older (some out of the house) and I'm still very much their mother and I still function in that role.  So I guess I don't see celestial parenthood as being all that different from what I'm doing now (except in scope and knowledge of course).

I think I see our disconnect. I don’t view children as being owned by a specific pair of parents. Blood relationship is a part of most our mortal experiences, and it certainly helps to form initial bonds, but I don’t see blood as playing any role in eternal parent-child relationships. (Not even “spirit blood” if anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole)  

Christ taught that he could raise Abrahams seed from stones. Eternal relationships are based on adherence to the same eternal principles rather than on childbirth.

I believe we are all adopted by our heavenly parents. There’s no pregnancy in the spirit world. God found us. He didn’t create us out of nothing. We’ve always existed. What we call our pre-mortal creation, and what defines our parent-child relationship, stems from God showing us a higher way, creating a path and instructions for us to achieve that higher way, and patiently supporting us through the process. We’re still very much in that process. 
 

Moreover, there’s not just one pair of parents. We use the name “Elohim” for God. Elohim literally means “the Gods”. The examples we are following are not from just one pair, but from many. Anyone who sets an example that we choose to follow is our parent. In the same sense, my biological children have many parents just in this life - seminary teachers, band and choir instructors, scoutmasters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, mission presidents, youth leaders, and so many more. 
 

I don’t want it to appear as if I’m disparaging biological parenthood, including the very immense sacrifices that come through child birth, nursing, and raising a child into mortal adulthood. Those are all very real, very good, and very much a part of parenthood. But there is so much more. 
 

To get back to the original issues in this thread (I think), I believe eternal motherhood is much more than what we think of a traditional mortal mothering of a young child. It includes very many roles which women have historically been excluded from, including roles that require a priesthood office. The eternal role encompasses everything, and is the same role available to men. And the role is shared - both with an eternal spouse and with many many other celestial couples. 
 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I think I see our disconnect. I don’t view children as being owned by a specific pair of parents. Blood relationship is a part of most our mortal experiences, and it certainly helps to form initial bonds, but I don’t see blood as playing any role in eternal parent-child relationships. (Not even “spirit blood” if anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole)  

Christ taught that he could raise Abrahams seed from stones. Eternal relationships are based on adherence to the same eternal principles rather than on childbirth.

I believe we are all adopted by our heavenly parents. There’s no pregnancy in the spirit world. God found us. He didn’t create us out of nothing. We’ve always existed. What we call our pre-mortal creation, and what defines our parent-child relationship, stems from God showing us a higher way, creating a path and instructions for us to achieve that higher way, and patiently supporting us through the process. We’re still very much in that process. 
 

Moreover, there’s not just one pair of parents. We use the name “Elohim” for God. Elohim literally means “the Gods”. The examples we are following are not from just one pair, but from many. Anyone who sets an example that we choose to follow is our parent. In the same sense, my biological children have many parents just in this life - seminary teachers, band and choir instructors, scoutmasters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, mission presidents, youth leaders, and so many more. 
 

I don’t want it to appear as if I’m disparaging biological parenthood, including the very immense sacrifices that come through child birth, nursing, and raising a child into mortal adulthood. Those are all very real, very good, and very much a part of parenthood. But there is so much more. 
 

To get back to the original issues in this thread (I think), I believe eternal motherhood is much more than what we think of a traditional mortal mothering of a young child. It includes very many roles which women have historically been excluded from, including roles that require a priesthood office. The eternal role encompasses everything, and is the same role available to men. And the role is shared - both with an eternal spouse and with many many other celestial couples. 
 

Interesting, thanks for explaining your perspective. 

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Interesting, thanks for explaining your perspective. 

Happy to. FWIW, I’m a similar stage of life to you. My kids are mostly out of the house and don’t rely on me for shelter, food, transportation, etc. My parenting relationship now exists in whatever sphere my children choose to seek my guidance. I’m blessed that they (mostly) still care what I think.
As one example, my oldest son  just began his first job that offers a 401k plan. He texted to ask my advice on traditional vs Roth plans. Nothing of great eternal significance, but I found the exchange immensely gratifying: I had valuable insight, he trusted me enough to seek guidance, and the result will likely bless his life. That’s a small example of how I see parenting in the eternities. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/3/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Nehor said:

I find all of it unconvincing. The idea that such a tactic would save Mom grief suggests Mom doesn’t care what we think of Dad. It also imputes a bad kind of toxic masculinity on Dad that He would storm and rage and beat the kids when that is not even what Mom in Her hurt wants.

1. Your opinion does not outweigh what GA's have taught on the subject.

2. Not being cursed and blasphemed by Thier children would in fact save Them grief, at least the one of Them that isn't able to be insulted by Thier children. Does it save you grief when you dont hear people curse you, mock you, etc? 

3. Mom cares what we think of Dad. She also acknowledges justice (the kids' actions losing thier blessing and protection / what you call storm and rage and beat the kids), love (Mom generally - or am I being paronizing again?  ) and mercy (both Parents) have thier limits and requirements. 

4. Not sure you know what Mothers in thier hurt want. Some of them understand their kids need prison time, or meds, or homeschool or shoulnd't serve missions. Had a Jewish teacher tell me once the cloud by day over the children of Israel circa Exodus was spoken of with a feminine personality. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:14 PM, Rain said:

Please show me in the bible or the book of mormon anywhere that says something like, "the reason Heavenly Father doesn't let us know about Heavenly Mother is out of respect to protect her."  I am unaware of anywhere in the scriptures that idea exists.

Friend, it would be patronizing of me to assume, even with your suggestion, that you are unable to conduct your own research. 

However, to help you in said efforts:

President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.”¹² Indeed, as Elder Rudger Clawson wrote, “We honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal Prototype.”¹³ https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng#p1

Here's 34 more results:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search/archive?exact=true&page=1&query="Heavenly+Mother"&lang=eng

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:16 PM, Rain said:

On 9/3/2023 at 11:29 AM, nuclearfuels said:

Are you familiar with crime statistics? or human biology perhaps (testosterone, adrenaline, anger and the like and its prevalence between genders)?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

It does.

Men commit more crime in part due to thier biology which more often leads to anger, violence, crime, etc. Women dont have the same biology or biochemitry regardless of what some politicians claim

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/4/2023 at 1:06 PM, Smiley McGee said:

So God puts his least spiritual, most violent/aggressive gender of children in charge so that they “learn and grow”? This growth and development isn’t possible under the leadership of a more spiritual, less violent gender?

Yes.

Ask Him why.

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. Your opinion does not outweigh what GA's have taught on the subject.

2. Not being cursed and blasphemed by Thier children would in fact save Them grief, at least the one of Them that isn't able to be insulted by Thier children. Does it save you grief when you dont hear people curse you, mock you, etc? 

Does it save Her grief when Her children insult her beloved husband?  Does it save her grief when they mourn for her female presence? Does it save her grief when some of her daughters feel like failures as moms and she wasn't there in a way that they felt she understood?

5 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

3. Mom cares what we think of Dad. She also acknowledges justice (the kids' actions losing thier blessing and protection / what you call storm and rage and beat the kids), love (Mom generally - or am I being paronizing again?  ) and mercy (both Parents) have thier limits and requirements. 

4. Not sure you know what Mothers in thier hurt want. Some of them understand their kids need prison time, or meds, or homeschool or shoulnd't serve missions. Had a Jewish teacher tell me once the cloud by day over the children of Israel circa Exodus was spoken of with a feminine personality. 

 

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Friend, it would be patronizing of me to assume, even with your suggestion, that you are unable to conduct your own research. 

That's good, because according to board rules you are the one who said you can find that reasoning in the scriptures so you are the one who should provide the references.  

20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

However, to help you in said efforts:

President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.”¹² Indeed, as Elder Rudger Clawson wrote, “We honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal Prototype.”¹³ https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng#p1

This is not a reference.  It is a link.

It is not a reference from the Bom or bible.

It does not say in any way "the reason Heavenly Father doesn't let us know about Heavenly Mother is out of respect to protect her." It talks about prayer and that the lack of praying to her does not denigrate her, not that the knowledge of her would have her insulted.

20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Here's 34 more results:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search/archive?exact=true&page=1&query="Heavenly+Mother"&lang=eng

Same as I wrote above. 

This is now a formal CFR.  Please share a scripture reference from the book of mormon that shows "the reason Heavenly Father doesn't let us know about Heavenly Mother is out of respect to protect her." Or withdraw your statement.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Rain

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/4/2023 at 12:56 AM, Calm said:

On 9/3/2023 at 11:27 AM, nuclearfuels said:

Remember, facts over feelings and reals over feels = effective positions and arguments.

Okay.  Perhaps you are not patronizing, but only rather unaware.

I back Rain’s comment.  Let’s see the facts you have on this.  Something besides your feels of being unsatisfied the RS isn’t doing chairs and moving.

How is this not pure speculation?  And likely based on feelings, perhaps you feel protective towards a woman you love and would do the same, so you assume other men would do the same even if you have no personal knowledge of them and apparently little knowledge of their culture given certain of your comments.

Quote

it seems to me the Bible and BoM prophets didn't write much about thier wives just as Heavenly Father protects His - out of respect, from scorn, mocking, and derision. 

The whole “women are more spiritual” is a feeling conclusion.  You feel what women do is more spiritual, but is not Captain Moroni, a soldier, seen as a spiritual giant?  A willingness to use violence can be spiritually motivated and a willingness to attend church and be actively involved there can be motivated by non spiritual reasons, such as a desire to socialize.  Without knowing the personal reasons for behaviours, labeling them spiritual or secular is logically premature and when people do it, it is most likely based on how they feel about the behaviour and not facts.

Women in our culture have in the past been more religious than men, but while there is overlap religiousity is not identical to spirituality. And there are cultures where there are higher numbers of men attending church, known for saying more prayers and studying scriptures is a very male activity.   So it does not appear women are inherently more religious than men, that is culturally dependent. 
 

And look, I have something more than just my feelings to back my claims!  

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/03/23/qa-why-are-women-generally-more-religious-than-men/

“The study finds that women are generally – but not universally – more religious than men in several ways. Indeed, data collected for the study show that in some religions and some contexts, men are as, or even more, religious than women.”

”One of the most striking findings in a new Pew Research Center analysis of survey and census data on gender and religion is that while Christian women are on the whole more religious than Christian men, Muslim women and Muslim men have similar levels of religious commitment. And when it comes to attendance at worship services, Muslim men are more active than Muslim women”

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/03/24/a-religious-gender-gap-for-christians-but-not-for-muslims/

1. I'm definitely patronizing not unaware. Self aware.

2. 5-second google search:

A quick glance at the statistics seems to tell the whole story: Men commit more acts of violence than women. The U.S. Department of Justice sponsored a National Crime Victimization Study in 2007. This evaluation found that 75.6 percent of all offenders were male and only 20.1 percent were female. In the remaining cases, the victim wasn't able to identify the gender of the offender. According to these results, men commit violent crimes more than three times as often as women [source: United States Department of Justice]. https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/emotions/men-more-violent.htm#:~:text=A quick glance at the,only 20.1 percent were female.

3. Re: Captain Moroni, the exception does not disprove the rule (meaning the average). Also, Cap'n went to Alma for spiritual guidance - suggesting he, Cap'n, was an inspired military leader not a Prophet (who in theory would have been more of a spiritual giant).  

4. Women in our culture have in the past been more religious than men. You're validating my claim here - before you question women's commitment/reason for being more religious.

5. Islam? Really? 14 centuries of conquest...helps your argument? The most violent religion in history: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/. While I applaud thier polygamous marriage practices, you are aware of thier views on women and womens' rights?  

In 1993, in a non-controversial essay written for Foreign Affairs titled “The Clash of Civilizations,” the influential Harvard University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington (d. 2008) wrote:

“In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations, from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.”

Couple from Pew as well: there are some countries in which substantial minorities think violence against civilians is at least sometimes justified. This view is particularly widespread among Muslims in the Palestinian territories (40%), Afghanistan (39%), Egypt (29%) and Bangladesh (26%). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ and here https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/6/2023 at 1:47 PM, bluebell said:

Not even “spirit blood” if anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole

Never heard of it. 

Would enjoy the rabbit hole or bread crumbs