LDS Freedom Forum

It's painful to see large groups of our brothers and sisters fall into these traps, again, and again.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing ... -dk0v.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which part, running on the generalizations, like the author, former president Jimmy Carter is doing? IMHO, there are better cases out there than what Carter decides to paint with a broad brush. Second, is there any particular direction Carter is going with what he is stating?

Rape is a crime in the world over, however, when the mechanisms for properly enforcing the law are broken, as can happen in the Arab Spring, the lawlessness permits all sorts of crime.

Carter is clearly, from how I am reading this, become senile and lost. It's honestly more complex than just religion's fault in general, how about promoting a little more stability in the region? And how about not supporting radicals who pretty much are just as full of trash as the previous regime? How about stick out of the revolutions in the Middle East, and let those involved know, all so well, that the U.S. isn't going to take a side? Sadly, that's something that the current administration doesn't have much of the sense to do.

Benjamin_LK wrote:Which part, running on the generalizations, like the author, former president Jimmy Carter is doing?

Carter? Wow. I didn't notice the author. I thought it was a woman who had authored the piece (I admit to skimming after the first couple of paragraphs).
)

A Random Phrase wrote:

Benjamin_LK wrote:Which part, running on the generalizations, like the author, former president Jimmy Carter is doing?

Carter? Wow. I didn't notice the author. I thought it was a woman who had authored the piece (I admit to skimming after the first couple of paragraphs).
)

I was also confused at first, until I read it a second time, which I often do so as to not feel too inclined to react to something I have read. I think though, that this discussion opens many cans of worms though, given how open-ended it is in writing.

I think one reason this type of claim gets a foothold, over and over again, is that people don't recognize the existence of what we call 'The Pride Cycle'.

Any group of people, including ones who have more light and truth, go through different stages of righteousness. Then others look back on their more prideful or wicked time, and label their 'light and truth' as evil, because they see evil fruits.

July 2009?

A Random Phrase wrote:

Benjamin_LK wrote:Which part, running on the generalizations, like the author, former president Jimmy Carter is doing?

Carter? Wow. I didn't notice the author. I thought it was a woman who had authored the piece (I admit to skimming after the first couple of paragraphs).

Well, maybe not a woman, but certainly a senile old bitty.

She's actually correct. The Valentinians, who held apostolic succession, didn't discriminate based on gender whatsoever. They were actually very similar to the Quakers. Many of the misogynistic parts of the New Testament are forgeries, like the famous pastoral letters which were created by the church fathers and not the apostle Paul.

Liberty_Agent wrote:She's actually correct. The Valentinians, who held apostolic succession, didn't discriminate based on gender whatsoever. They were actually very similar to the Quakers. Many of the misogynistic parts of the New Testament are forgeries, like the famous pastoral letters which were created by the church fathers and not the apostle Paul.

Did you read the author's name?

And I politely disagree with your conclusion of the article, as you would be able to tell from my earlier post.

Liberty_Agent wrote:She's actually correct. The Valentinians, who held apostolic succession, didn't discriminate based on gender whatsoever. They were actually very similar to the Quakers. Many of the misogynistic parts of the New Testament are forgeries, like the famous pastoral letters which were created by the church fathers and not the apostle Paul.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the writing style was feminine.

I think it's unfortunate that the author missed the true tragedy of male dominion. All he could do was talk about the terrible things done to women when this mentality is taken to excess, and those things are terrible, but the true problem with this type of mentality is the damage it does to a woman's spirit. When the man's will is put over the woman's she is being taught that she is of less worth and not equal in the eyes of God to the men. This is the true tragedy.

Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails. This is absolutely wrong and goes against the doctrine in Doctrine and Covenants 121 which states that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. If we are to follow the Lord's admonition, we would be teaching that the man ought to yield to the woman's will. This way the man, who is the leader of the family, has the burden of needing to persuade his wife of any decisions he would like to make. This would encourage him to become a true leader, leading by persuasion and love, not by virtue of his priesthood.

Called to Serve wrote:I think it's unfortunate that the author missed the true tragedy of male dominion. All he could do was talk about the terrible things done to women when this mentality is taken to excess, and those things are terrible, but the true problem with this type of mentality is the damage it does to a woman's spirit. When the man's will is put over the woman's she is being taught that she is of less worth and not equal in the eyes of God to the men. This is the true tragedy.

Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails.

That's not what I've learned through the church- or, more accurately, through the temple. I'm not told to bow to my husband's will, but to follow him AS he follows the Lord. That implies a lot of discernment. My job is to be in tune with the Lord, not only to follow God, but to recognize when my husband is in line- or out of it. To be aligned with my husband when he is truly following the Spirit, and to not blindly go along at all times. That's a big responsibility; one that reduces the chance that I'll be steamrolled.

Called to Serve wrote:This is absolutely wrong and goes against the doctrine in Doctrine and Covenants 121 which states that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

You left out the rest of the verse here, completely changing its meaning.

Called to Serve wrote:If we are to follow the Lord's admonition, we would be teaching that the man ought to yield to the woman's will. This way the man, who is the leader of the family, has the burden of needing to persuade his wife of any decisions he would like to make. This would encourage him to become a true leader, leading by persuasion and love, not by virtue of his priesthood.

Now you quote the rest of the verse, away from its context. If I'm trying to live up to my temple covenants- including what I specified above- this should in itself help him lead through persuasion and love, which is the Lord's pattern. And he should learn the wisdom of yielding sometimes- sometimes a lot- and being in tune enough to know when!

singyourwayhome wrote:

Called to Serve wrote:I think it's unfortunate that the author missed the true tragedy of male dominion. All he could do was talk about the terrible things done to women when this mentality is taken to excess, and those things are terrible, but the true problem with this type of mentality is the damage it does to a woman's spirit. When the man's will is put over the woman's she is being taught that she is of less worth and not equal in the eyes of God to the men. This is the true tragedy.

Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails.

That's not what I've learned through the church- or, more accurately, through the temple. I'm not told to bow to my husband's will, but to follow him AS he follows the Lord. That implies a lot of discernment. My job is to be in tune with the Lord, not only to follow God, but to recognize when my husband is in line- or out of it. To be aligned with my husband when he is truly following the Spirit, and to not blindly go along at all times. That's a big responsibility; one that reduces the chance that I'll be steamrolled.

Called to Serve wrote:This is absolutely wrong and goes against the doctrine in Doctrine and Covenants 121 which states that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

You left out the rest of the verse here, completely changing its meaning.

Called to Serve wrote:If we are to follow the Lord's admonition, we would be teaching that the man ought to yield to the woman's will. This way the man, who is the leader of the family, has the burden of needing to persuade his wife of any decisions he would like to make. This would encourage him to become a true leader, leading by persuasion and love, not by virtue of his priesthood.

Now you quote the rest of the verse, away from its context. If I'm trying to live up to my temple covenants- including what I specified above- this should in itself help him lead through persuasion and love, which is the Lord's pattern. And he should learn the wisdom of yielding sometimes- sometimes a lot- and being in tune enough to know when!

I'm going to need a little clarification here--how did I change the meaning of the verse?

To me, an English major in college (not trying to claim superior knowledge here; just explaining why I'm prone to take apart sentences), it is two separate sentences combined together. So the meaning of one part does not rely on the meaning of the other part.

The first part says (paraphrased): No one can or should claim power just because they've been called to a leadership position.
The second part says (also paraphrased): A leader can only righteously lead by persuasion, love, meekness, etc.

Did I misunderstand something?

I was taught the same things in the temple as you. But I have also been taught, over the pulpit in general conference as well as in seminary and institute classes, that the husband's decision is the one you go with when the two can't come to a consensus. I suppose I could try to find a reference.

(enter Jeopardy music here)

Okay, can't find anything. I'm not that great at doing searches for specific things in general conference talks and whatnot. So I appeal to the LDSFF crowd. Am I imagining things or has anyone else heard this idea taught? I'm certain I heard it in conference at least once and at least one other time in either seminary or institute. I recall it instilling feelings of conflict within me. I felt compelled to believe it but it didn't feel right.

Whether or not that particular idea has been taught, I think there can be little doubt that the general philosophy of the church is for the members to yield to the leaders if there is a difference of opinion. This is not right whether it is in the home or out.

Incidentally, if anyone knows of any church teachings that teach the wife to stand up to her husband when she thinks he is wrong, I'd be interested in seeing that. I can't think of any myself.

Oh, and just to be thorough, here is the entire reference I was referring to:

Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-42

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Called to Serve wrote: Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails.

Are we taught that? I have never been taught that and I have grown up in the church and I would like to think that I have been paying attention all this time. Show me any official church publication that teaches that. Just because you know people who act like that doesn't mean it is what is taught in the church. That attitude is present among some church members but to my knowledge it has always been preached against. D&C 121 has always been taught to me as the rule for how priesthood leaders are to govern at home and in the church.

Silas wrote:

Called to Serve wrote: Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails.

Are we taught that? I have never been taught that and I have grown up in the church and I would like to think that I have been paying attention all this time. Show me any official church publication that teaches that. Just because you know people who act like that doesn't mean it is what is taught in the church. That attitude is present among some church members but to my knowledge it has always been preached against. D&C 121 has always been taught to me as the rule for how priesthood leaders are to govern at home and in the church.

Heard this many times in church.

Right, I understand that there are people who are members of the church who believe this, but that is not the same thing as saying the church teaches it.

Silas wrote:Right, I understand that there are people who are members of the church who believe this, but that is not the same thing as saying the church teaches it.

There may be some, unique folks though who do teach it...

It is not taught in the church but the exact opposite... The last few priesthood sessions they talked about Compromising not getting one way or another... The only thing (I can think of) that people could construe about this is what is taught in the temple ... wives love your husbands even AS your husbands love the Lord. I think some do take that out of context. I mean if you husbands are only doing the will of the father than this statement is 100% correct but as soon as your husband falters than you should obey the Lord (but still compromise as we are in a telestial world)

Also last conference they mentioned over and over how the men must start living up to their potential. Know what they told the women that conference (in relief society broadcast). You are amazing, keep doing what your doing, you will convert millions (as prophesied by Eliza R snow?)... Paraphrasing.

Called to Serve wrote:I think it's unfortunate that the author missed the true tragedy of male dominion. All he could do was talk about the terrible things done to women when this mentality is taken to excess, and those things are terrible, but the true problem with this type of mentality is the damage it does to a woman's spirit. When the man's will is put over the woman's she is being taught that she is of less worth and not equal in the eyes of God to the men. This is the true tragedy.

Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails. This is absolutely wrong and goes against the doctrine in Doctrine and Covenants 121 which states that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. If we are to follow the Lord's admonition, we would be teaching that the man ought to yield to the woman's will. This way the man, who is the leader of the family, has the burden of needing to persuade his wife of any decisions he would like to make. This would encourage him to become a true leader, leading by persuasion and love, not by virtue of his priesthood.

The husband is not dominant. He is only to be followed to the extent that he follows the Lord, if the will of the husband goes contrary to the commandments of God, the wife or children of said man are under no obligation to follow it. Again, Doctrine & Covenants 121 also states, "Amen to the Priesthood Authority of that man.", in reference to when a man excercises unrighteous dominion. If the wife disagrees because the husband is excercising unrighteous dominion, or trying to coerce herself or the children into something contrary to the laws of God, she is completely justified in disobeying him in doing that.

I do feel however, that the author missed the real foundation of all selfishness and abuse, called PRIDE, and PRIDE is something that is a natural and very dangerous temptation to yield to. Again, Doctrine & Covenants 121, has plenty more to say about pride, and is a worthwhile passage to read.

That's funny because in every LDS house I've ever been in, if Momma's not happy, nobody is happy.

Fiannan wrote:

Silas wrote:

Called to Serve wrote: Don't think this mentality is not present in the church. We are taught that when a husband or wife disagrees, the husband's will prevails.

Are we taught that? I have never been taught that and I have grown up in the church and I would like to think that I have been paying attention all this time. Show me any official church publication that teaches that. Just because you know people who act like that doesn't mean it is what is taught in the church. That attitude is present among some church members but to my knowledge it has always been preached against. D&C 121 has always been taught to me as the rule for how priesthood leaders are to govern at home and in the church.

Heard this many times in church.

Thanks. Glad I wasn't just hearing things.

I should note that I'm not talking about moral decisions, like the husband asking the wife to go rob a bank or something. That's fairly obvious that that's wrong. What I'm talking about is ordinary non-moral decisions like what color to pain the den or whether to take a sick child to the doctor. When the man is always getting his way simply because he's the "head of the home" then it has damaging spiritual effects on the rest of the family. He ought to be required to persuade his family that his decision is correct.

Called to Serve wrote: Thanks. Glad I wasn't just hearing things.

I should note that I'm not talking about moral decisions, like the husband asking the wife to go rob a bank or something. That's fairly obvious that that's wrong. What I'm talking about is ordinary non-moral decisions like what color to pain the den or whether to take a sick child to the doctor. When the man is always getting his way simply because he's the "head of the home" then it has damaging spiritual effects on the rest of the family. He ought to be required to persuade his family that his decision is correct.

My only argument was that it seemed you were indicating that such behavior was endorsed by the church and I believe that the actual church teachings make it clear that it is not. The Family Proclamation makes it clear that husband and wife are to be equal partners, that is how it is in my household. I never pull the I'm the priesthood holder card to get my way. If I am using the priesthood properly I will never have to demand my wife comply with my wishes. We seek to do what is right for our family while holding mutual respect for each others feelings and opinions. We are both willing to admit when we are wrong and while I certainly don't do everything right, I have learned out to lead my family with love and not force. That is what the church, via the teachings of modern and ancient prophets, as taught me to do.
That being said I am well aware that many men in the church have not learned the lesson. I just wanted to make it clear that those people are not following the teachings of the church but have either rejected them or misunderstood them.

Silas, I am speaking of a teaching I have heard taught in general conference. You are right, though, I have heard the opposite taught as well. I especially like Elder (shoot, was it Eyring?)'s talk in which he told the story of trying to correct his wife's driving. It seems to me that we have been taught both ideas in the church but the one I mentioned stood out to me because it caused inner conflict.