LDS Freedom Forum

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:05 pm

Not really, Hugh Nibley was only a professor unless I'm mistaken? It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense. They make things clear as day, so I enjoy sharing it with others. If I had a talk from my next door neighbor's daughter-in-law's cousins uncle that I could send to you , I'd send it.

It'd do every man in this church a great service to read these talks and reevaluate what they think it means to preside. When you talk about leadership, all I hear is management. When you describe what a leader is, I don't see Jesus Christ.

A leader is loving, compassionate. Long suffering. A true leader does not coerce, it is not God's plan to coerce. A man shall be one with his wife, side by side, not above his wife. A man should not dictate what his wife should say or do. Any priesthood holder who feels threatened by the possibility of sharing "authority" with his wife does not understand what it means to lead and preside.

Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

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;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 9:51 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm
Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

Your McDonald's dinner analogy is interesting because this is essentially what I've done with my husband regarding his bad behavior. You basically say, "I can't appreciate this gift, and need to go do something else." "I'm not going to tolerate this behavior etc." The woman has every right to do this as the husband, and call out his bad behavior.

So if you're equating this need to correct bad behavior to leadership, than the wife can be just as much a leader as her husband. But I don't think these examples regarding the exchange of work gifts or emotional or physical gifts, is really what presiding is all about. Presiding is making sure everyone is unified and working together in love. It is about helping others reach their potential to become leaders themselves. You want your wife to lead your children as well, so she should "share" in the authority to lead. Our prophets have consistently said that husbands and wives are equal partners. This is the higher law and ideal we are striving for, and not for the wife to remain as a child, always submitting to the will of the husband without him considering her opinion. It's as if the wife has no right to receive any revelation or inspiration from the Lord.

Men and women both need to learn to be submissive. If you are submissive to Christ, then you will come to understand that you also need to submit to your wife when she is in the right and has an interest in a decision. Christ has explained the higher laws, and the husband doesn't need to remake them. You teach them to your family so that you can all be united in Christ. The nitty gritty decisions about when bedtime is for the kids should be agreed upon by you and your wife jointly. And actually you should let your wife have more say in this area as she is the one who has to deal with them all day if they are tired. She will reap the consequences of whatever happens with the children. She can give you more leeway in making the decisions regarding money since you have more control over that area of your lives.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 9:51 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:28 pm

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:20 pm
Then you don't know Christ; yes love and compassion is absolutely critical.

But Christ also used a whip. He also told Peter to "Get thee behind me Satan". He called out the pharisees on their BS.

It's not about "sharing" authority. The scriptures, the actual Word of God refutes your modernity. It plainly tells women to submit to their husbands. It plainly tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. It plainly tells that men are to lead.

In absolutely NO scripture does it say ANYTHING about men and women "sharing" authority. That is simply the philosophies of men-mingled with scripture.

You can kick against the scriptures and twist them all you want (well women was created from his side so that mean's "equal"), you can try to make them say anything else but what they say. But they don't-they refute you, plainly and clearly.

Now we can absolutely have a conversation about what it does mean to submit, what it does mean to lead and how that should properly be done. But the scriptures firmly and clearly state the proper order, which is God leads man, man leads wife, man and wife lead family.

Using the example of Christ calling out pharisees is hardly the best example of how you should treat your Wife , Children and those that you should be serving should you have a calling.



Again, I don't think you actually read before responding. I never said a man should not lead. It's about HOW you lead, and you misunderstand how it should be done. Go throughout your life as you wish, I don't know you, I never will. However, spread your tyrannical version of "Leadership" and defend the men engaging in unrighteous dominion in the Sister's story in the other thread , and I'll make sure to let that Sister know that there are other men out there who support her and understand.

"Tyrannical". Lol, lady you don't know what righteous or unrighteous looks like.

So I see, let me give you an example. Let's say oh I don't know that as part of the roles of the wive she has agreed to provide meals. Let's say she is at home all day long and when her husband comes home all she does is run out to Macdonals and buy happy meals.

Now this is a problem; husband works long hours to provide, wife is not fulfilling her end of the deal here. What is do be done . . . .

Now some brutes will yell and scream have huge arguments, etc.
Now idiots will sit there and conjol, beg, plead, try to make their wife feel all gooy inside.

Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

Clearly this is a very fictional, made-up example. The point remains; leadership doesn't enable other people in their BS, it is done without anger, without malice, just very matter-of-fact. It holds other people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of their own actions.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc. The leadership part is focused on specific issues, the love part is everything else. It would be a very cruel and heartless husband who let a specific issue bleed over into everything else in the relationship.

The messed up thing is that many women do this frequently. Except with emotions and sex appeal. 2 days later the woman is pissed off at him and she is being snarky and he's thinking "what did I do?"

There is a reason why men are called to lead their families; b/c men (in general) have a much better ability to regulate their emotions, emotion comes and then it goes. For women it takes a lot more control emotion comes . . .it stays . . .then it goes . . .maybe. And when you are able to control your emotions you can think and act more clearly; you can better manage the affairs that need to be managed.

You see this played out in just the body language between men and women. Men's body language is much, much harder to read than women (men keep their bodies and body language more under control than women do).

I understand this about women; it's really hard for woman to do so-to keep their emotions in check. My wife comes to an emotional decision first and then she will think about the logic of why she felt that way. The problem being living by emotional decisions alone will lead to utter chaos. It's why the chaos is embodied in the feminine.

And there are only a couple of ways of learning; either you figure it out yourself or you have someone embody it and you learn from their behavior. If one is an emotional ball; it's really hard to figure that out by yourself. But if you have someone to lead you and guide you on how to control your emotions and how to properly act, it's much easier to do.

It is possible you will read all sort of horrible things in this; I'm extremely calm I'm in total control.

There is a reason why the far from the idea of men being the abusers, there is a reason why the vast, vast majority of childhood physical abuse comes not from the man . . .but from the woman. The statistics are there, woman physical abuse children in much larger percentages than men to.

And it's easy to see why. Lack of emotional control leads to doing really stupid things.

Your McDonald's dinner analogy is interesting because this is essentially what I've done with my husband regarding his bad behavior. You basically say, "I can't appreciate this gift, and need to go do something else." "I'm not going to tolerate this behavior etc." The woman has every right to do this as the husband, and call out his bad behavior.

So if you're equating this need to correct bad behavior to leadership, than the wife can be just as much a leader as her husband. But I don't think these examples regarding the exchange of work gifts or emotional or physical gifts, is really what presiding is all about. Presiding is making sure everyone is unified and working together in love. It is about helping others reach their potential to become leaders themselves. You want your wife to lead your children as well, so she should "share" in the authority to lead. Our prophets have consistently said that husbands and wives are equal partners. This is the higher law and ideal we are striving for, and not for the wife to remain as a child, always submitting to the will of the husband without him considering her opinion. It's as if the wife has no right to receive any revelation or inspiration from the Lord.

Men and women both need to learn to be submissive. If you are submissive to Christ, then you will come to understand that you also need to submit to your wife when she is in the right and has an interest in a decision. Christ has explained the higher laws, and the husband doesn't need to remake them. You teach them to your family so that you can all be united in Christ. The nitty gritty decisions about when bedtime is for the kids should be agreed upon by you and your wife jointly. And actually you should let your wife have more say in this area as she is the one who has to deal with them all day if they are tired. She will reap the consequences of whatever happens with the children. She can give you more leeway in making the decisions regarding money since you have more control over that area of your lives.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:16 pm


Niether of the two do any good (especially if it is a long-standing problem). Righteous leadership clearly communicates, without anger, or malice. "Honey, this is a problem, you need to fix this problem, I'm not going to accept happy meals for dinner". Doesn't say anything else, not another word, next time wife buys happy meals, don't eat it go out to a restaurant by yourself and get a nice meal. Keep doing that. When it's time for that vacation that the wife wants, you say. "I'm sorry honey, I really would like to have taken this vacation, unfortunately in order to eat healthy I'm been buying my dinner's from Panera Bread and thus we can't take a vacation".

Boom, end of story. You don't tolerate BS. It's not cruel, it's not abusive. It's just called not tolerating BS. If the wife wants to change so she can have vacations, great she will, if not she won't.

The love part comes about by not holding grudges, by ensuring that outside of the specific problem issue you demonstrate love to them; hugs, kisses, etc. etc.

Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority. They act as though they would rather satisfy their own selfish desires and appetites than use the power of God to bless His children.

I fear that too many of our brothers and sisters do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs.3 Some of our brethren, for example, act like they do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do. Let me give you some specific examples.

Well, brethren, in like manner, I fear that there are too many men who have been given the authority of the priesthood but who lack priesthood power because the flow of power has been blocked by sins such as laziness, dishonesty, pride, immorality, or preoccupation with things of the world.

I fear that there are too many priesthood bearers who have done little or nothing to develop their ability to access the powers of heaven. I worry about all who are impure in their thoughts, feelings, or actions or who demean their wives or children, thereby cutting off priesthood power.

Stahura wrote: ↑March 25th, 2019, 2:56 pm https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng

Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority. They act as though they would rather satisfy their own selfish desires and appetites than use the power of God to bless His children.

I fear that too many of our brothers and sisters do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs.3 Some of our brethren, for example, act like they do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do. Let me give you some specific examples.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... r?lang=eng

Well, brethren, in like manner, I fear that there are too many men who have been given the authority of the priesthood but who lack priesthood power because the flow of power has been blocked by sins such as laziness, dishonesty, pride, immorality, or preoccupation with things of the world.

I fear that there are too many priesthood bearers who have done little or nothing to develop their ability to access the powers of heaven. I worry about all who are impure in their thoughts, feelings, or actions or who demean their wives or children, thereby cutting off priesthood power.

President Nelson can't possibly be talking about me right? I make my children read scriptures with the family every night. I make sure they do their personal study every single day. I take everything away from them if they skip seminary. I let my wife know it's unacceptable if she doesn't cook enough, but I'm the head of the household. I LEAD. I am unyielding. Is that not what leaders do? I can't be guilty. I can't have lost my priesthood. I go to church, I pay tithing, I'm sealed.

Surely he is talking about abusive fathers who hit their wives and children in a drunken rage, right?

Or is it me? It probably is me. The Holy Ghost is easily grieved.

Good thing is God is extremely quick to forgive. President Nelson is on to something, are you listening?

If you have a need to repent because of the way you have treated the women closest to you, REPENT NOW.

The Airbender wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 8:55 am Priesthood is love. Plain and simple. Priesthood is the people who follow you because they love and trust you. God "has" priesthood by virtue of the love and trust of those who follow him. There is no magical priesthood that we somehow hold or bear. Authority in the Priesthood means that those who follow God are told they can follow you if you are like Him. Priesthood is obedience because of love. Satan's priesthood is obedience because of fear.

We don't bear the Priesthood. We bear a recommendation of the Savior which the elements honor if we are like the Savior.

The Airbender wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 8:55 am Priesthood is love. Plain and simple. Priesthood is the people who follow you because they love and trust you. God "has" priesthood by virtue of the love and trust of those who follow him. There is no magical priesthood that we somehow hold or bear. Authority in the Priesthood means that those who follow God are told they can follow you if you are like Him. Priesthood is obedience because of love. Satan's priesthood is obedience because of fear.

We don't bear the Priesthood. We bear a recommendation of the Savior which the elements honor if we are like the Savior.