LDS Freedom Forum

I tired to make a previous post about this but it didn't show up so I thought I'd make this thread because I really would like to know how you feel.

So a little about me, I've been a member basically my whole life, am 35, married with two kids. Raised an active member, served a mission in Brazil from 2003-2005. Married in the Temple in 2008.

So let's cut to the chase. I am not enthusiastic about the recent endowment changes nor the manner in which the changes took place. The Proclamation of the Family which I always found to be an immensely important and divine document layed out clearly and reinforced centuries of scripture that established the father as the Patriarch of the home, in other words head of the household and presider. Women in the Temple were asked to harken to their husbands in order for this to be possible but now women are not required to make this promise. How can a man preside over his home and be the head of the household if his wife is no longer required to heed or "harken" to his council? You now have a situation where there are two heads of the household? It just doesn't make sense and I cannot reconcile this as it undermines a man's Preisthood authority and runs couter to so many key Gospel principles. It also suspicious coincides with the rise of feminism and cultural marxism (two things most certainly NOT of God).

Anyway is anyone else bothered by these changes?

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:06 pm I tired to make a previous post about this but it didn't show up so I thought I'd make this thread because I really would like to know how you feel.

So a little about me, I've been a member basically my whole life, am 35, married with two kids. Raised an active member, served a mission in Brazil from 2003-2005. Married in the Temple in 2008.

So let's cut to the chase. I am not enthusiastic about the recent endowment changes nor the manner in which the changes took place. The Proclamation of the Family which I always found to be an immensely important and divine document layed out clearly and reinforced centuries of scripture that established the father as the Patriarch of the home, in other words head of the household and presider. Women in the Temple were asked to harken to their husbands in order for this to be possible but now women are not required to make this promise. How can a man preside over his home and be the head of the household if his wife is no longer required to heed or "harken" to his council? You now have a situation where there are two heads of the household? It just doesn't make sense and I cannot reconcile this as it undermines a man's Preisthood authority and runs couter to so many key Gospel principles. It also suspicious coincides with the rise of feminism and cultural marxism (two things most certainly NOT of God).

Anyway is anyone else bothered by these changes?

Sorry I am not bothered at all. I in no way think that I somehow preside over my wife. I can't begin to fathom what that would even mean. I look forward to the day when we receive even further light and knowledge and reach an even deeper understanding of a women's role in the priesthood that we only get a glimpse of in the temple now.

Mormons are always changing things, they call it continuing revelation. Plus the guy that directed the temple videos admitted to molesting a kid, so it sounds like it was a good time to stop playing the videos and make the changes they wanted to make

Here is the original post: First time posts are subject to approval by a moderator before being published. There was additional explanation here so I've added it to this thread. I hope that's okay.

By [email protected] » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:06 pm

I have been a member all my life. I'd be lying if I said I was a perfect person or perfect member but I did serve a mission in Brazil from 2003-2005 and then later was married in the Temple in 2008 and have served in various callings in Young Men, Primary, and Elder's quorum over the years. I've been lucky to meet Eyring, and Uctdorf, and have always had especially great respect for Faust, Hinkley, and Monson as well as Boyd K. Packer. Anyway I'm not trying to toot my own horn here but I'm just throwing this out there so you understand where I am coming from and how much it pains me to say this but I must:

These recent changes to the endowment ceremony I am not on board with and cannot support. I see several problems with them from the doctrinal persepective of a member of the Church and from an external perspective.

From a doctrinal persepective the father is to be the head of the house hold and Patriarch of the home. It's in the Proclamation of the Family, it's been fundumental Priesthood doctrine going back from the time of Adam and Eve right up until January of 2019. Now the wife is no longer asked to "harken" to her husband as he harkens to God. If she does not harken to her husband than he is effectively no longer the Patriarch or head of the household. He cannot preside over the home if there is another with equal authority. Worse, if a man is still expected to shoulder the primary responsibility for caring for and protecting his family spiritually and physically but his authority to preside over all members of the household is removed then that would almost make him a slave and the relationship with his wife become little more than that of roommates. This will undermine Priesthood Authority throughout the Church.

From an external perspective, seeing as third wave feminism has become rampant and increasingly pervasive in our society the timing of this change is also suspect, as is the manner in which this change was implemented. It appears several vocal feminists within the Church initiated this change and seeing as how it's being praised in the mainstream media by essentially the wrong kind of people (from a faithful member's perspective) then this looks to be just pandering and caving to external societal trends.

Also the fact of the matter is feminism and really, cultural marxism, is a societal cancer and it has ruined many fine organizations in throughout the world. Feminism is not compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor is progressivism in general which is why it saddens me to see the Church start to bend to these influences. When President Nelson had ended the Church partnership with Boy Scouts of America I was disappointed by that but I understood it considering that organization bent to social pressures and abandonded it's principles. I was also taken aback by the changes to church worship on Sunday from 3 hours to 2 but I accepted it. However his decision to allow the Endowment Ceremony (and key Preisthood doctrine in the process) to be changed in this manner without a detailed explaination and forbidding members to speak of such an important change may be the last straw for me. I am unsure I can sustain him as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator when General Conference comes around this spring.

I am also bothered by the recent endowment change, as well as the change in the marriage sealing ordinance. And yes, it was the result of surveys, interviews, and many years of lobbying by the feminists, and they are celebrating over their victory.

You will also see the church softening their stance on homosexuality in the near future. First they will stop excommunicating those who marry a same-sex partner, and then they will allow their children to be baptized (removing the Nov 2015 addition to the Handbook) and then they will recommend wards treat gays and their families like any other members of the ward. I say, less than 2 years for this. If this doesn't happen, droves are going to leave the Church.

It's a sad time we live in. God weeps.

There is no denying that the Brethren have changed the ordinances & covenants. By removing the “oath of vengeance” (which was a covenant added by BY, I.e. after Joseph) in the 1930’s & by removing the “penalty” covenants & signs in 1990. It can’t be argued that removing covenants & ritual signs tied to those is just changing “the presentation”.

I can see what you are concerned about but I don't think the endowments change anything or invalidate the proclamation to the world on the family. The husband is still responsible for the protection and provision of his family and presides in righteous. The wife is still responsible for the nurturing of her children and as the proclamation reads "Fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." So really the endowment is actually more in line with the proclamation now.
I don't see why having a direct covenant to deity threatens the wives ability to still see her husband as the head of the family. My husband never had to make a covenant about leading and presiding over his family before but that has still been taught as doctrine so I don't really see why when wives promise to obey the commandments and keep His law that that would mean they would do anything other than follow our divinely appointed roles. I don't understand why you think that counselling together for the good of the family isn't something that should be done. Most often mothers are with their children way more than the father is so they would have valuable insight when trying to make plans or solve problems the children are facing. How does this make them no better than roommates if they respect and treat eachother as equals?
I hope you can get some clarity and this doesn't have any lasting effects to your testimony.

There's another long thread that was started on this topic. I'd suggest reading through that.

But one thing I've been thinking about since that thread is that you can't have a patriarch without a matriarch. Maybe we should refer to it as the Patriarchal and Matriarchal priesthood or order?

Eve's punishment was that Adam would rule over her. Because of her disobedience first, she had the larger separation and arguably the larger consequence. She was put in more of a role of a child and possession, expected to obey. The ideal is complete unity and cooperation and selflessness, and submission to each other. How wonderful would marriages be if both put the other first and didn't feel the need or entitlement to assert their will. The Elder who presides in a council should ideally not move forward until concensus can be reached, and so the one who presides is reponsible for ensuring that this happens.
So I believe we are getting close to the end when all curses will be removed including the curses placed on Adam and Eve. Men will have no more thorns and thistles, and Eve's lower station in the hierarchy will be rectified.

Would it make sense for the men to covenant to obey the Prophet, Stake President, or Bishop? Maybe it does. So if we expect women to obey their husbands we should also expect that men to obey the Bishop. But even with that the men would have it easier for obvious reasons. You don't have to live with your Bishop or depend on him for your well-being. You don't have the Bishop getting annoyed at you when you're not in the mood!

justme wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:46 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:06 pm I tired to make a previous post about this but it didn't show up so I thought I'd make this thread because I really would like to know how you feel.

So a little about me, I've been a member basically my whole life, am 35, married with two kids. Raised an active member, served a mission in Brazil from 2003-2005. Married in the Temple in 2008.

So let's cut to the chase. I am not enthusiastic about the recent endowment changes nor the manner in which the changes took place. The Proclamation of the Family which I always found to be an immensely important and divine document layed out clearly and reinforced centuries of scripture that established the father as the Patriarch of the home, in other words head of the household and presider. Women in the Temple were asked to harken to their husbands in order for this to be possible but now women are not required to make this promise. How can a man preside over his home and be the head of the household if his wife is no longer required to heed or "harken" to his council? You now have a situation where there are two heads of the household? It just doesn't make sense and I cannot reconcile this as it undermines a man's Preisthood authority and runs couter to so many key Gospel principles. It also suspicious coincides with the rise of feminism and cultural marxism (two things most certainly NOT of God).

Anyway is anyone else bothered by these changes?

Sorry I am not bothered at all. I in no way think that I somehow preside over my wife. I can't begin to fathom what that would even mean. I look forward to the day when we receive even further light and knowledge and reach an even deeper understanding of a women's role in the priesthood that we only get a glimpse of in the temple now.

Well think about it. If you are a father you are supposed to preside over your home/household specifically. Your wife is a member of your household is she not? How are you supposed to preside over your household if she is no longer required to "harken" to your council? Like I said you're (as a man and father) shouldering the responsibility and accountability of protecting and providing for your family but now you have someone else in the mix who's part of that family but doesn't fall under the umbrella of your authority but yet you are still responsible and accountable for what happens to that person. That is not right. I'm not saying you run roughshod over your wife but a household can have only one head and that is the father. This doctrinal change now essentially creates two heads of a household because it undermines the husband's Priesthood authority as the wife is no longer accountable to the husband.

Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:25 pm

justme wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:46 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:06 pm I tired to make a previous post about this but it didn't show up so I thought I'd make this thread because I really would like to know how you feel.

So a little about me, I've been a member basically my whole life, am 35, married with two kids. Raised an active member, served a mission in Brazil from 2003-2005. Married in the Temple in 2008.

So let's cut to the chase. I am not enthusiastic about the recent endowment changes nor the manner in which the changes took place. The Proclamation of the Family which I always found to be an immensely important and divine document layed out clearly and reinforced centuries of scripture that established the father as the Patriarch of the home, in other words head of the household and presider. Women in the Temple were asked to harken to their husbands in order for this to be possible but now women are not required to make this promise. How can a man preside over his home and be the head of the household if his wife is no longer required to heed or "harken" to his council? You now have a situation where there are two heads of the household? It just doesn't make sense and I cannot reconcile this as it undermines a man's Preisthood authority and runs couter to so many key Gospel principles. It also suspicious coincides with the rise of feminism and cultural marxism (two things most certainly NOT of God).

Anyway is anyone else bothered by these changes?

Sorry I am not bothered at all. I in no way think that I somehow preside over my wife. I can't begin to fathom what that would even mean. I look forward to the day when we receive even further light and knowledge and reach an even deeper understanding of a women's role in the priesthood that we only get a glimpse of in the temple now.

Well think about it. If you are a father you are supposed to preside over your home/household specifically. Your wife is a member of your household is she not? How are you supposed to preside over your household if she is no longer required to "harken" to your council? Like I said you're (as a man and father) shouldering the responsibility and accountability of protecting and providing for your family but now you have someone else in the mix who's part of that family but doesn't fall under the umbrella of your authority but yet you are still responsible and accountable for what happens to that person. That is not right. I'm not saying you run roughshod over your wife but a household can have only one head and that is the father. This doctrinal change now essentially creates two heads of a household because it undermines the husband's Priesthood authority as the wife is no longer accountable to the husband.

We can still teach that a father presides, as he holds the priesthood. Presiding has more to do with Priesthood, and your service in the Priesthood than it does with having someone promise to obey you. I think we look at presiding in the wrong way, and assume this has something to do with what Eve was required to submitt to.

There's also nothing forcing you to hearken to your wife. If you think she is wrong about something, you have you're agency. Wouldn't it be nice if you knew your wife was hearkening to you because she really trusted you and liked your opinions, rather than feeling it was her duty to go along? Time to live a higher law and have things flow to you without compulsion.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 9:08 pm I am also bothered by the recent endowment change, as well as the change in the marriage sealing ordinance. And yes, it was the result of surveys, interviews, and many years of lobbying by the feminists, and they are celebrating over their victory.

You will also see the church softening their stance on homosexuality in the near future. First they will stop excommunicating those who marry a same-sex partner, and then they will allow their children to be baptized (removing the Nov 2015 addition to the Handbook) and then they will recommend wards treat gays and their families like any other members of the ward. I say, less than 2 years for this. If this doesn't happen, droves are going to leave the Church.

It's a sad time we live in. God weeps.

“There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has stated. “But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.”

Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

Well...yes? How can Heavenly Father BE Heavenly Father if his own spouse doesn't obey him and he doesn't care? This is what I'm talking about with authority being undermined by having two co-equal individuals running a home, it makes no sense. Another way to look at it, can a company or business have two CEOs? Can a country have two Kings or two Presidents? No. The way that has always made sense to me is if the home were a company or corporation the mother would be the CEO and the father the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The CEO manages the day to day tasks and empoyees (children so to speak) of the organization but the highest authority is the Chairman of the Board. Just some of my thoughts. Also I don't believe in a matriarcy (neither did Bruce R. McConkie) in fact a patriarchy and matriarchy are mutually exclusive. One of God the other is not. Equality as we understand it today is a modern 20th and 21st century notion derived from cultural marxism as taught in our western academic institutions and reinforced in western literature and media going back to roughly the 1930s. It is not of God but I am convinced this is source of much of the "hurtful feelings" with regard to the pre-2019 Temple Endowment ceremony.

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 11:09 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

Well...yes? How can Heavenly Father BE Heavenly Father if his own spouse doesn't obey him and he doesn't care? This is what I'm talking about with authority being undermined by having two co-equal individuals running a home, it makes no sense. Another way to look at it, can a company or business have two CEOs? Can a country have two Kings or two Presidents? No. The way that has always made sense to me is if the home were a company or corporation the mother would be the CEO and the father the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The CEO manages the day to day tasks and empoyees (children so to speak) of the organization but the highest authority is the Chairman of the Board. Just some of my thoughts. Also I don't believe in a matriarcy (neither did Bruce R. McConkie) in fact a patriarchy and matriarchy are mutually exclusive. One of God the other is not. Equality as we understand it today is a modern 20th and 21st century notion derived from cultural marxism as taught in our western academic institutions and reinforced in western literature and media going back to roughly the 1930s. It is not of God but I am convinced this is source of much of the "hurtful feelings" with regard to the pre-2019 Temple Endowment ceremony.

Who says she doesn't care?

The doctrine that wives are subject to their husbands is still in the scriptures, and was never dependent upon the temple endowment.
I have concerns about the changes and what motivated them, but as we haven't thrown out the scriptures the doctrine remains the same.

Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

May I answer this?

:->

D&C 121: 41 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;

To say that you preside because you have the priesthood violates this verse. We love God because He loves us first.

justme wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:46 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:06 pm I tired to make a previous post about this but it didn't show up so I thought I'd make this thread because I really would like to know how you feel.

So a little about me, I've been a member basically my whole life, am 35, married with two kids. Raised an active member, served a mission in Brazil from 2003-2005. Married in the Temple in 2008.

So let's cut to the chase. I am not enthusiastic about the recent endowment changes nor the manner in which the changes took place. The Proclamation of the Family which I always found to be an immensely important and divine document layed out clearly and reinforced centuries of scripture that established the father as the Patriarch of the home, in other words head of the household and presider. Women in the Temple were asked to harken to their husbands in order for this to be possible but now women are not required to make this promise. How can a man preside over his home and be the head of the household if his wife is no longer required to heed or "harken" to his council? You now have a situation where there are two heads of the household? It just doesn't make sense and I cannot reconcile this as it undermines a man's Preisthood authority and runs couter to so many key Gospel principles. It also suspicious coincides with the rise of feminism and cultural marxism (two things most certainly NOT of God).

Anyway is anyone else bothered by these changes?

Sorry I am not bothered at all. I in no way think that I somehow preside over my wife. I can't begin to fathom what that would even mean. I look forward to the day when we receive even further light darkness and knowledge and reach an even deeper cheaper understanding of a women's role in the priesthood that we only get a glimpse of in the temple now.

--------------
I think you'd better read this part again.

1st - God " formed man of the dust of the ground".
Then, instead of forming woman the same way (from the ground)
He forms woman - from man - taking a part of the man.
WHY ?
to be "an help meet for him."

Genesis 2

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

18 ¶ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh.

quote

"The story of “Adam’s rib” is found in Genesis. Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman, Eve, by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam. The question also arises as to why God created woman out of Adam’s rib. God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).

God used Adam’s rib to form Eve to show that they were actually the same created being, two halves of a whole. The female was not created as a separate being, second to the male. She was formed as part of the initial man, in order to be a “helper suitable” for the male (Genesis 2:18). While Adam was in a divinely induced sleep, God “took one of the man’s ribs and . . . made a woman” (Genesis 2:21–22). Eve was brought into being to strengthen and powerfully help Adam; she was made from the same “stuff,” and she was every bit as perfect a creation as man and every bit as patterned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27).

The woman made of Adam’s rib was designed to be a “suitable helper” for Adam (Genesis 2:20). The Hebrew phrase is translated “help meet” in the KJV and “companion who corresponded” in the NET. It is not synonymous with assistant, servant, minion, or subordinate. The Hebrew phrase, ’ezer kenegdow, in all other instances in the Bible refers to powerful and extensive aid and support. In most cases, the phrase was used to depict dominant military forces or armed men. Other passages, including Deuteronomy 33:7, 29, and Exodus 18:4, use the same phrase to discuss the potent interventions and deliverances of God Himself. Woman, therefore, was created as a complement to man, as an integral part of man, and as a powerful and influential companion for man.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated “suitable,” kenegdow, carries much more meaning than simply “fit” or “appropriate.” This word also means “opposite or contrasting.” This implies that the two beings were designed to work and fit together perfectly, not just physically but in all ways. The strengths of each compensated for the weaknesses of the other. It was “not good” for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18), but, together, Adam and Eve were something far stronger and more magnificent than either of them could have been alone. Adam had to lose a rib, but he gained so much more.

Why did God use Adam’s rib? A closer examination of the Hebrew also reveals another surprising element of the story. The Hebrew word translated “rib” in Genesis 2 is tsela. The only other instance of the English word rib in the Bible occurs in Daniel 7:5, but the Hebrew word used there is different. In other passages where tsela or its variants are used, the word is translated “side.” For example, in Exodus 25, 27, and 35, the words tselo (variant) and tselot (plural) are used to refer to the “sides” of the Ark of the Covenant or the “sides” of the altar. In 2 Samuel 16:13, David encounters a cursing Shimei moving along the side (tsela) of a hill. In these contexts, translating the word tsela as “rib” would not fit.

This raises the possibility that Eve could have been fashioned of more than just Adam’s rib. In the Genesis 2 passage, tsela could actually be translated as Adam’s “side,” rather than Adam’s “rib.” If the appropriate translation is that God removed Adam’s side, how much of his side did God remove? It is possible that Eve was constructed literally from half of Adam. This would bring added meaning to Adam’s declaration that Eve was “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Whether God created Eve from Adam’s rib or from his whole side, He accomplished the act in such a way that showed the woman was to complement and complete man in the integral union of marriage. Woman was created to be “beside” man, not beneath or above him. In salvation, man is no more “worthy” and woman is no less a citizen of God’s kingdom. “There is neither . . . male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They stand side-by-side as fellow “heirs . . . of the gracious gift of life” (1 Peter 3:7)."

Hi, I am new here, but I also wanted to hand over my 2 cents. I strongly have the feeling that this temple change is just preliminary for much bigger changes in the future. Somehow the rushed way this has been implemented and the unfinished look of it gives me the feeling it is just a first step towards something bigger. Doe anyone shares my feelings about this?
I for one cannot wait. I am very happy with these changes and I am full of anticipation of that which is about to come!

Our brain has two equal halves. And the right brain actually submits to the chronological order of the left brain. This prevents insanity since the right brain has no concept of time. Also, the left brain does the talking and the right brain does the seeing. I thought this was why Eve was silent in the first movies.

Nevertheless, all males and females have both a male and female brain. That means as human beings we are all capable of thinking sovereignly. No one has the authority to think better than anyone else.

Why is Eve a helpmeet? Well, if Adam is to lead his family, then he is responsible for which directions things go. What if he unknowingly leads things in a bad direction? Well, luckily, he has a helpmeet. If he is doing something wrong, surely his helpmeet will know about it and provide him with necessary information so Adam does not lead the family into evil, as good as his intentions are.

Having a knowledge of good can be very bad if not coupled with a knowledge of evil. If good is all you know, how do you protect against bad? You wouldn't be able to but would unknowingly create evil. How many times has communism done this. The ideals of communism are not much different than the ideals of the united order. The difference is the leader.

If Eve can provide her husband an understanding of how some directions lead to evil, then her insights are a great help. If Adam is wanting to lead in righteousness but is actually hurting the hearts of his family, Eve will know and provide him with this important information he may not have any other way.

Nevertheless, just because Eve knows what not to do, doesn't make her the leader. If you put the person who knows what not to do in front, then all they can lead the family to do is what not to do, since that is what they know.

So, Adam has the leadership and Eve has an understanding of the laws of nurturing which means you don't let your great knowledge of truth burn so brightly that nothing grows. There has to be milk. There has to be patience. Together this creates love. This creates growth. How many times must Eve tell her husband, "For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish." (D&C 19)

Therefore a knowledge of truth must be tempered with a knowledge of pain and evil so the truth doesn't kill everything on its mission to implementing it's high ideals. The dark compliments the night and allows plants to rest from sun and to grow bigger the next day.

The more I know God, the more I see how He is both the light and dark together. He is not only light. In fact, it is Lucifer that never will have a body. He only knows light. He will never know the information that pain from a body can give if you make a violation of life. This knowledge of evil and pain the body provides allows us to not do things to the body that would kill us. Therefore, Lucifer the light bearer will never be God since He will never have a body and will never know how to create, since creation is a function of light and dark.

If the right and left brain try to take over each other then that creates a bi polar effect. Let the left brain lead but realize it is blind. The right brain has access to creation power via emotional states. We are all emotional beings and this is creation power. The left brain creates a language processing center or a house for the creation power to live in and function in in this plane of existence.

Arganoil wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 5:50 am Hi, I am new here, but I also wanted to hand over my 2 cents. I strongly have the feeling that this temple change is just preliminary for much bigger changes in the future. Somehow the rushed way this has been implemented and the unfinished look of it gives me the feeling it is just a first step towards something bigger. Doe anyone shares my feelings about this?
I for one cannot wait. I am very happy with these changes and I am full of anticipation of that which is about to come!

----------------
Hi, and welcome to the forum.
I think you'll find that there are many DIFFERENT opinions here,
and ALL are important, so thank you.
However, I disagree, and believe the "something bigger", as you say,
is kind a like - "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Alaris wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 12:41 am

Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

May I answer this?

:->

Of course!

Juliet wrote: ↑February 11th, 2019, 6:00 am Our brain has two equal halves. And the right brain actually submits to the chronological order of the left brain. This prevents insanity since the right brain has no concept of time. Also, the left brain does the talking and the right brain does the seeing. I thought this was why Eve was silent in the first movies.

Nevertheless, all males and females have both a male and female brain. That means as human beings we are all capable of thinking sovereignly. No one has the authority to think better than anyone else.

Why is Eve a helpmeet? Well, if Adam is to lead his family, then he is responsible for which directions things go. What if he unknowingly leads things in a bad direction? Well, luckily, he has a helpmeet. If he is doing something wrong, surely his helpmeet will know about it and provide him with necessary information so Adam does not lead the family into evil, as good as his intentions are.

Having a knowledge of good can be very bad if not coupled with a knowledge of evil. If good is all you know, how do you protect against bad? You wouldn't be able to but would unknowingly create evil. How many times has communism done this. The ideals of communism are not much different than the ideals of the united order. The difference is the leader.

If Eve can provide her husband an understanding of how some directions lead to evil, then her insights are a great help. If Adam is wanting to lead in righteousness but is actually hurting the hearts of his family, Eve will know and provide him with this important information he may not have any other way.

Nevertheless, just because Eve knows what not to do, doesn't make her the leader. If you put the person who knows what not to do in front, then all they can lead the family to do is what not to do, since that is what they know.

So, Adam has the leadership and Eve has an understanding of the laws of nurturing which means you don't let your great knowledge of truth burn so brightly that nothing grows. There has to be milk. There has to be patience. Together this creates love. This creates growth. How many times must Eve tell her husband, "For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish." (D&C 19)

Therefore a knowledge of truth must be tempered with a knowledge of pain and evil so the truth doesn't kill everything on its mission to implementing it's high ideals. The dark compliments the night and allows plants to rest from sun and to grow bigger the next day.

The more I know God, the more I see how He is both the light and dark together. He is not only light. In fact, it is Lucifer that never will have a body. He only knows light. He will never know the information that pain from a body can give if you make a violation of life. This knowledge of evil and pain the body provides allows us to not do things to the body that would kill us. Therefore, Lucifer the light bearer will never be God since He will never have a body and will never know how to create, since creation is a function of light and dark.

If the right and left brain try to take over each other then that creates a bi polar effect. Let the left brain lead but realize it is blind. The right brain has access to creation power via emotional states. We are all emotional beings and this is creation power. The left brain creates a language processing center or a house for the creation power to live in and function in in this plane of existence.

----------------
I don't know if you wrote this, but I think it's very interesting.
don't know that I agree with everything; haven't really thought about it long enough.

Durzan wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 11:57 pm

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 11:09 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 10:33 pm Do you think Heavenly Father is concerned about Heavenly Mother obeying him? When Adam and Eve were married in the GofE, did HF tell Eve her role was to obey Adam?

Well...yes? How can Heavenly Father BE Heavenly Father if his own spouse doesn't obey him and he doesn't care? This is what I'm talking about with authority being undermined by having two co-equal individuals running a home, it makes no sense. Another way to look at it, can a company or business have two CEOs? Can a country have two Kings or two Presidents? No. The way that has always made sense to me is if the home were a company or corporation the mother would be the CEO and the father the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The CEO manages the day to day tasks and empoyees (children so to speak) of the organization but the highest authority is the Chairman of the Board. Just some of my thoughts. Also I don't believe in a matriarcy (neither did Bruce R. McConkie) in fact a patriarchy and matriarchy are mutually exclusive. One of God the other is not. Equality as we understand it today is a modern 20th and 21st century notion derived from cultural marxism as taught in our western academic institutions and reinforced in western literature and media going back to roughly the 1930s. It is not of God but I am convinced this is source of much of the "hurtful feelings" with regard to the pre-2019 Temple Endowment ceremony.

Who says she doesn't care?

What I mean by this question, is I don't believe he worries about it because they have already become completely united. He is just as willing to hearken to her and she is willing to hearken to him. They each are working together and have different roles at the same time.
Even though my husband leads our family, he leads us as he obeys God, doing the things he believes God wants him to do. If I were to disagree, because I felt that God had commanded differently, there is no reason I need to do something I disagree with. The problem is that we are not united under the direction of God. It would concern me if my husband didn't listen to my counsel as much as he would be bothered if I didn't listen to his. And so him presiding is to teach him to be one with God and his wife in leading the family.

The goal is to be united though proper councils and councilling. Kings, branches of government, are stepping stones to help us learn to obey and listen to each other until we all become one in Christ.