LDS Freedom Forum

You all are going about this the wrong way.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:00 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

Ah yes, men fought in wars and worked in coal mines, therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to tell them they can’t own wives and command them as if they were children. Sound logic

I guess you think your boss at work commands you like a child too! ROFLOL.

Yes, compare a marriage relationship to that of an employer and an employee, it only shows how wack your mindset is nice

I submit to my boss.

You claim submitting means to be commanded like a child.

Ergo, you believe submitting to a boss is to be commanded like a child.

I'm not talking about a marriage relationship, I'm talking about what it means to submit. But because you believe submitting is to be commanded like a child-you believe yourself to be a child compared to your boss.

ori wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:04 am

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 6:37 am

Gage wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 6:19 am

The East Wind wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:23 pm

What about this change is bothering you?

Its not the particular change that bothers me, what bothers me are the women demanding full equality as if the Church is a social club or Government entity with equality of rights under the law

If we want this fixed, we need to start fighting fire with fire. That's what I'm doing. I'm a very well-respected member of my ward. I've already held leadership callings. I don't tell people openly that I'm trying to subvert the evil coming from our leadership, I simply do it covertly - just like the people over at Mormons Building Bridges do.

The prophet Joseph Fielding Smith taught:
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."

We can feel 100% safe and secure in God's eyes in rejecting these false doctrines. If you feel dismayed by the evil being done in the Church, avoid the temptation to leave. Stay and change it. Do it quietly, but put the corrections back in. If and when I am a bishop, I won't be asking any women to stand as witnesses at the font. I will be asking homosexual members to leave the building. I will put only the most submissive, quiet, obedient and respectful women into callings. I will begin to return things to their correct order. I encourage you to do the same.

Good thing you aren’t a bishop. Jesus said to not turn anyone away from church meetings. Even homosexuals have place in our meetinghouses. Homosexual behavior such as kissing, however, absolutely does not have a place in our meetinghouses. Anyone doing so should be asked to leave. If that’s what you really meant then I’m with you.

“If and when” he is a bishop, sounds pretty positive he will be one .

God help that ward. I’m sure it’ll go over well when he puts his foot down and refuses to allow women to be witnesses. So much righteousness

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:06 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:00 am

Ah yes, men fought in wars and worked in coal mines, therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to tell them they can’t own wives and command them as if they were children. Sound logic

I guess you think your boss at work commands you like a child too! ROFLOL.

Yes, compare a marriage relationship to that of an employer and an employee, it only shows how wack your mindset is nice

I submit to my boss.

You claim submitting means to be commanded like a child.

Ergo, you believe submitting to a boss is to be commanded like a child.

I'm not talking about a marriage relationship, I'm talking about what it means to submit. But because you believe submitting is to be commanded like a child-you believe yourself to be a child compared to your boss.

I actually haven’t made the claim you say I made. You take what I actually say and stretch it to mean all kinds of nonsense.

Again, good luck with this test. I’m sorry that God took your place buddy.

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

It's disgusting how women were treated throughout the centuries

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

This is why feminism falls apart. Yeah. Life was hard for women. But life was almost universally miserable for everyone until very recently. The true history of men and women is that the overwhelming majority of men worked, fought, and died to protect and provide for women and to improve their lives. Which is exactly how it should be. It’s just that women used to understand that and honor and respect men for it.

Our culture is mostly shaped by people who explicitly hate Jesus Christ and Christian values. For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Total nonsense. Night is day, good is evil, freedom is slavery. The absolute safest place for a woman to be is in the home of a loving man that she has devoted herself to. Yeah life was hard but women were almost always better off in a marriage arrangement than any other available alternative.

Sad sad sad. 10 pages of this “men vs women” stuff that I see so often on this forum.

I’m on board with the change to witness rules. I stand with the prophet. I do think it odd that children can take on such a role, but I’m ok with it.

Can’t wait to listen to the apostles and first presidency this coming General Conference!

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:48 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:35 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm

Gage wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:18 pm

Feminist and women's groups in the Church are demanding full equality. This so called revelation is just another move to appease these foolish women.

Don’t think so. Women were given witnessing rights but it was at the same time as children, not nice or elevating at all. It’s more a further stab at the insignificance of women in the church. It’s like women were skipped over and they moved to the children.

So, Why is this not appeasing those foolish children???

Sometimes I think why oh why has the church given anything to women because if they are given anything then they are hated by men and put down and lumped in with feminist when they are not. Maybe the church is actually trying to hurt women and to have men despise them? Because it’s comments like yours that does harm to good women and attempts to bring shame.

Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
----
Women wanted power and men acquiesced to give it to them, so they get it. When you pervert the true order of God, you get women and children ruling.

It's gonna be fun to see the consequences of these things down the road.

This scripture can easily be about how weak men become and follow women (pretty body and nice voice gets a man to be a fool) and how children can manipulate a weak man (I don’t want my kids mad at me) This is not about women taking power from men it’s about men not exercising their own power over themselves.

I actually think this scripture is symbolically describing how the religious and political leaders will become weak. Has nothing to do with literal women or children "ruling." These weak leaders cause the people to err.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:04 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:02 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:43 am

This is a test for you brother, don’t get an ego that God trumps you in your marriage. Your crying that God took your spot? Take it up with him and you tell him that he cannot do this to you because you read here and here that she belongs to you first, not him. See how fast he can humble you. Picking a fight you will loose. It’s a test, even Abraham was asked to kill his only son God gave him and lose his promise of numerous seed. Can you humble yourself enough to pass this test? What God gives he can take, ask King Saul. Your wife is not property to any man, she is a gift from God.

AMEN

Nice, 2 people now wishing curses on other saints. That's the spirit of Christ for ya!

Wishing curses? You’re just making stuff up now. Is it so hard to debate?

Oh come now. Don't hide behind words.

I post how the temple has changed.
A response is made that I'm "crying that God took my spot".
A response is made that I should "humble myself to pass the test"
A response is made that if I don't "God can take what he gives"

In other words, if I don't humble myself to except the "new" doctrine, God will take away my wife . . .lol too rich. i.e. it's a veiled threat of wishing ill upon another saint (i.e. a curse). And you amen'd it. So 2 cursings.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:06 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am
I guess you think your boss at work commands you like a child too! ROFLOL.

Yes, compare a marriage relationship to that of an employer and an employee, it only shows how wack your mindset is nice

I submit to my boss.

You claim submitting means to be commanded like a child.

Ergo, you believe submitting to a boss is to be commanded like a child.

I'm not talking about a marriage relationship, I'm talking about what it means to submit. But because you believe submitting is to be commanded like a child-you believe yourself to be a child compared to your boss.

I actually haven’t made the claim you say I made. You take what I actually say and stretch it to mean all kinds of nonsense.

Again, good luck with this test. I’m sorry that God took your place buddy.

Lol, God didn't take my place. Nothing of the sort happened. But go ahead and pine about your self-righteousness and all other lifeforms who are less worthy than you b/c you "passed the test".

Lol, this is hilarious.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am
For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Yeah.. that's not what's happening here in the church.

What's happening is we have a bunch of men who think that because they worked and made some money and provided some food,that means he can dictate what the woman can do, she must heed his beck and call along with the children, she must listen to him and do what he says, all family decisions are up to the man, she can chime in and he'll let her speak to give the illusion of an equal partnership, but her input in the end doesn't matter because he thinks he can make unilateral decisions. Now those men are lashing out because they are losing absolute power. They are blaming all their family problems on the "rebellious women".

D&C 121. ALMOST. ALL.MEN.

Unrighteous Dominion. Almost. all. men.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:10 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:04 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:02 am

AMEN

Nice, 2 people now wishing curses on other saints. That's the spirit of Christ for ya!

Wishing curses? You’re just making stuff up now. Is it so hard to debate?

Oh come now. Don't hide behind words.

I post how the temple has changed.
A response is made that I'm "crying that God took my spot".
A response is made that I should "humble myself to pass the test"
A response is made that if I don't "God can take what he gives"

In other words, if I don't humble myself to except the "new" doctrine, God will take away my wife . . .lol too rich. i.e. it's a veiled threat of wishing ill upon another saint (i.e. a curse). And you amen'd it. So 2 cursings.

I'm impressed how far you managed to twist that.

Keep on twisting, this is fascinating. It's like a creative writing contest.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:06 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:01 am
I guess you think your boss at work commands you like a child too! ROFLOL.

Yes, compare a marriage relationship to that of an employer and an employee, it only shows how wack your mindset is nice

I submit to my boss.

You claim submitting means to be commanded like a child.

Ergo, you believe submitting to a boss is to be commanded like a child.

I'm not talking about a marriage relationship, I'm talking about what it means to submit. But because you believe submitting is to be commanded like a child-you believe yourself to be a child compared to your boss.

I actually haven’t made the claim you say I made. You take what I actually say and stretch it to mean all kinds of nonsense.

No, you did.

Do you or do you not submit to your boss?
Does the scripture states wives are to submit to their husbands?

To the first, clearly you do but you don't claim your boss "commands me like a child".
To the second, you believe no because you believe for wives to submit means the man should "command her like a child".

You are being hypocritical in your own definitions of submit.
When you submit to your boss-you don't feel you are being "commanded like a child"
But when a wive submits to her husband she IS being "commanded like a child"-or so you like to claim as the reason as to why wives shouldn't "submit"

Hypocrisy.

You've managed to preach "equality" by manipulating and twisting your own internal definition of submit . . . .but ONLY when it's used in the context of wives submitting to their husband.

In the context of an employee submitting to their employer, you then very conveniently use a different definition-which is well of course I my boss doesn't "command me like a child".

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:16 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:06 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:03 am

Yes, compare a marriage relationship to that of an employer and an employee, it only shows how wack your mindset is nice

I submit to my boss.

You claim submitting means to be commanded like a child.

Ergo, you believe submitting to a boss is to be commanded like a child.

I'm not talking about a marriage relationship, I'm talking about what it means to submit. But because you believe submitting is to be commanded like a child-you believe yourself to be a child compared to your boss.

I actually haven’t made the claim you say I made. You take what I actually say and stretch it to mean all kinds of nonsense.

No, you did.

Do you or do you not submit to your boss?
Does the scripture states wives are to submit to their husbands?

To the first, clearly you do but you don't claim your boss "commands me like a child".
To the second, you believe no because you believe for wives to submit means the man should "command her like a child".

You are being hypocritical in your own definitions of submit.
When you submit to your boss-you don't feel you are being "commanded like a child"
But when a wive submits to her husband she IS being "commanded like a child".

Hypocrisy.

Okay buddy

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:16 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:16 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:06 am
I submit to my boss.

You claim submitting means to be commanded like a child.

Ergo, you believe submitting to a boss is to be commanded like a child.

I'm not talking about a marriage relationship, I'm talking about what it means to submit. But because you believe submitting is to be commanded like a child-you believe yourself to be a child compared to your boss.

I actually haven’t made the claim you say I made. You take what I actually say and stretch it to mean all kinds of nonsense.

No, you did.

Do you or do you not submit to your boss?
Does the scripture states wives are to submit to their husbands?

To the first, clearly you do but you don't claim your boss "commands me like a child".
To the second, you believe no because you believe for wives to submit means the man should "command her like a child".

You are being hypocritical in your own definitions of submit.
When you submit to your boss-you don't feel you are being "commanded like a child"
But when a wive submits to her husband she IS being "commanded like a child".

Hypocrisy.

Okay buddy

It's pretty obvious. It's only YOU who believes when a wive submits to a husband, that the husband is supposed to "command her like a child".

But when an employee submits to their boss, nope just change the definition to mean something else.

It's you who have a messed up idea of what submit means in the context of men and women b/c you use a definition for the word submit that you don't use in other contexts.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

It's disgusting how women were treated throughout the centuries

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

This is why feminism falls apart. Yeah. Life was hard for women. But life was almost universally miserable for everyone until very recently. The true history of men and women is that the overwhelming majority of men worked, fought, and died to protect and provide for women and to improve their lives. Which is exactly how it should be. It’s just that women used to understand that and honor and respect men for it.

Our culture is mostly shaped by people who explicitly hate Jesus Christ and Christian values. For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Total nonsense. Night is day, good is evil, freedom is slavery. The absolute safest place for a woman to be is in the home of a loving man that she has devoted herself to. Yeah life was hard but women were almost always better off in a marriage arrangement than any other available alternative.

This is a great point that aligns with the changes that are coming. The curse of Eve where women have men rule over them are exactly for the reasons you've outlined here. However, though warfare continues, it won't always be so.

Isaiah 40:1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.


This is the fulfillment of Yom Kippur - The Day of Atonement where Israel is reconciled and iniquity is pardoned. Warfare is accomplished i.e. done. The curses of Israel are lifted (D&C 113 / Isaiah 52) - the curses of Adam and Eve are lifted. The tree of life is no longer hidden and guarded but made accessible to us (Revelation last chapters.) What will woman's role be like then? Certainly it will be different - I don't think it will be 50 / 50 everything is same and equal like some liberals / leftists here say they stand for. However it is, man will always preside imho - and though women won't be subject to man's rule as they have been, a celestial relationship between man and woman will be one where roles are embraced and respected.

I think the sifting could be as simple as the empowerment of women as theses curses are lifted - we're not talking 60s liberation where boots are made for walking - we're talking women are empowered to become priestesses to hold their own authority that speaks to their eternal roles where the man still presides over her works. Can you imagine a simpler way to weed out the proud on both extremes? Women have a restored priesthood - but yeah they're still made by, made for, and given to their husbands in sealing. How many folks would melt over that?

Add the restoration of polygamy and how many would be left after that? A tenth maybe?

Isaiah 6:11 Then said I, Lord, how long? (how long will the seraphim have to teach the blind, deaf, and dumb?) And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

12 And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

13 ¶ But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.

Shear-Jashub

Whether you outright reject what I'm saying, humility doesn't hurt anyone in the long run. Ask God if these changes are from him. It's easy. Only the meek will inherit the earth and we may be witnesses how that is accomplished live here.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:13 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am
For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Unrighteous Dominion. Almost. all. men.

Convenient how you bash men exclusively, but don't include women.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

It's disgusting how women were treated throughout the centuries

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

This is why feminism falls apart. Yeah. Life was hard for women. But life was almost universally miserable for everyone until very recently. The true history of men and women is that the overwhelming majority of men worked, fought, and died to protect and provide for women and to improve their lives. Which is exactly how it should be. It’s just that women used to understand that and honor and respect men for it.

Our culture is mostly shaped by people who explicitly hate Jesus Christ and Christian values. For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Total nonsense. Night is day, good is evil, freedom is slavery. The absolute safest place for a woman to be is in the home of a loving man that she has devoted herself to. Yeah life was hard but women were almost always better off in a marriage arrangement than any other available alternative.

I don't know any woman or large-scale movement of thought that puts down the man who wants to sacrifice for a woman so she can stay home and raise children. The complaint of feminists, is that some married men feel entitled to a woman's body, or they commit to marry then don't provide, or walk out, leaving the woman to take care of herself and children. The complaint of some feminists is that women have been restricted from educating or providing for herself if a irresponsible man was not available, essentially forcing woman to have no other choice but to marry a potentially selfish man in order to survive.

I think the real problem is that there are not enough men nowadays who are willing to sacrifice, because they want the sexual and economic freedom bachelorhood gives them. And the men who have committed to sacrifice, get tempted into feeling slighted that they don't have the sexual freedom they want.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:23 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

It's disgusting how women were treated throughout the centuries

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

This is why feminism falls apart. Yeah. Life was hard for women. But life was almost universally miserable for everyone until very recently. The true history of men and women is that the overwhelming majority of men worked, fought, and died to protect and provide for women and to improve their lives. Which is exactly how it should be. It’s just that women used to understand that and honor and respect men for it.

Our culture is mostly shaped by people who explicitly hate Jesus Christ and Christian values. For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Total nonsense. Night is day, good is evil, freedom is slavery. The absolute safest place for a woman to be is in the home of a loving man that she has devoted herself to. Yeah life was hard but women were almost always better off in a marriage arrangement than any other available alternative.

I think the real problem is that there are not enough men nowadays who are willing to sacrifice, because they want the sexual and economic freedom bachelorhood gives them. And the men who have committed to sacrifice, get tempted into feeling slighted that they don't have the sexual freedom they want.

And women don't want to submit.

Welcome to relationship hell between men and women.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:10 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:48 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:35 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm

Don’t think so. Women were given witnessing rights but it was at the same time as children, not nice or elevating at all. It’s more a further stab at the insignificance of women in the church. It’s like women were skipped over and they moved to the children.

So, Why is this not appeasing those foolish children???

Sometimes I think why oh why has the church given anything to women because if they are given anything then they are hated by men and put down and lumped in with feminist when they are not. Maybe the church is actually trying to hurt women and to have men despise them? Because it’s comments like yours that does harm to good women and attempts to bring shame.

Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
----
Women wanted power and men acquiesced to give it to them, so they get it. When you pervert the true order of God, you get women and children ruling.

It's gonna be fun to see the consequences of these things down the road.

This scripture can easily be about how weak men become and follow women (pretty body and nice voice gets a man to be a fool) and how children can manipulate a weak man (I don’t want my kids mad at me) This is not about women taking power from men it’s about men not exercising their own power over themselves.

I actually think this scripture is symbolically describing how the religious and political leaders will become weak. Has nothing to do with literal women or children "ruling." These weak leaders cause the people to err.

Okay, well if symbolic then we understand the term “women” but do you know of a reference to “children” as a symbolic meaning? I have a symbol book but I’m not sure the term child or children is in there. Unless children is supposed to be the simple humble people who are teachable? Help me understand more of what your saying

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:23 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am

It's disgusting how women were treated throughout the centuries

There in lies the rub. Our modern perception of men and women is skewed if not juvenile. Life was hard for both Men and Women. Most people were treated like 2nd class citizens, regardless of gender.

How we perceive the past:


Reality for most men throughout the ages:

This is why feminism falls apart. Yeah. Life was hard for women. But life was almost universally miserable for everyone until very recently. The true history of men and women is that the overwhelming majority of men worked, fought, and died to protect and provide for women and to improve their lives. Which is exactly how it should be. It’s just that women used to understand that and honor and respect men for it.

Our culture is mostly shaped by people who explicitly hate Jesus Christ and Christian values. For a couple generations now we’ve been conditioned with heavy propaganda to tell us that a man who labors and sacrifices to provide for the wellbeing of a woman so that she is free to raise her children in comfort is actually oppressing her.

Total nonsense. Night is day, good is evil, freedom is slavery. The absolute safest place for a woman to be is in the home of a loving man that she has devoted herself to. Yeah life was hard but women were almost always better off in a marriage arrangement than any other available alternative.

I don't know any woman or large-scale movement of thought that puts down the man who wants to sacrifice for a woman so she can stay home and raise children. The complaint of feminists, is that some married men feel entitled to a woman's body, or they commit to marry then don't provide, or walk out, leaving the woman to take care of herself and children. The complaint of some feminists is that women have been restricted from educating or providing for herself if a irresponsible man was not available, essentially forcing woman to have no other choice but to marry a potentially selfish man in order to survive.

I think the real problem is that there are not enough men nowadays who are willing to sacrifice, because they want the sexual and economic freedom bachelorhood gives them. And the men who have committed to sacrifice, get tempted into feeling slighted that they don't have the sexual freedom they want.

There is a lot of sin on both sides. Men can’t expect women to follow if they won’t actively take charge and lead. Men do need to say no to all of the heavy debauchery in our society if we expect women to trust us. I agree with that. I think porn is making men very unappealing to women, and most men are not taking that seriously enough.

That being said our culture really encourages female narcissism and women need to learn to reject that. Women need to accept that they are flawed and capable of evil as well as good. As a flawed individual they have no right to demand a perfect man as there is no such thing and they don’t deserve one if they did exist. You can still honor, respect, and obey a good though flawed man.

[email protected] wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:32 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 10:09 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 10:00 pm One of the first things shown in the Garden of Eden, is the Patriarchal Order. God establishes this very clearly. What is usually missed is how Satan manipulates this order. In the scriptures we see he bypasses Adam altogether. He approaches Eve, and deceives her. Getting her instead to go and persuade her husband Adam, who follows her lead. God, returning, questions what is happening. He first inquires of Adam, who states his wife has gotten him to partake of the forbidden fruit. God then inquires of Eve, who states that Satan beguiled her. After hearing the events, we see God point out how they went outside the proper order, explain consequences resulting from straying from what was intially established. God then reestablishes the proper order, the Patriarchal Order, before removing them from the Garden.

This has been removed from the endowment now of course. But still is clearly shown in the scriptures. Many seem to be celebrating or lamenting the changes, and squabbling about equality. But I fear we're missing the subtle craftiness of Satan in beguiling a majority, to seek after and praise, an order other than the one Father has established. We may not fully appreciate the Patriarchal Order, because we haven't fully felt the effects of replacing it, for something our own. So as more of these changes take place over time, ask yourself, if this is becoming more in line with the Patriarchal Order, or something more socially acceptable, something more progressive and on par with the times.

Since it’s Gods prophet doing the changes perhaps we do need to be questioning our long held beliefs of what we think with our limited information given. Respecting the prophet of God sure has been replaced with an improper order of thinking we have every right to question his authority and voice and not follow or sustain him. Do men obey this Patriarchal order as they should? If we think about it, how many men are not following the admonition of the Lord through the voice of his prophet? So we can be upset that women are trying to thwart the proper order all day long but we need to look at the bigger picture.

I see no issue with any of the temple ceremony changes and do not see this as anything bad.

Either way, those willing to follow the word of God through his anointed prophet and keep their covenants and strive to live righteously and repent often and seek to obtain the gift of charity through becoming Christ-like will all be the ones who will be happy in the end. There is a sifting and our requirements are still the same and quite simple.

The Temple changes were a huge HUGE red flag for me as most people who've seen my posts know well. Whether you like that particular change or not the fact is it fundumentally changed the nature of the relationship between men and women and between husband and wife and I just don't know how anyone can see it any other way. Having a Prophet to guide us and give new revelation as needed is one thing but that went beyond that and it was a really unsettling change for me. Plus it wasn't just the change itself, it was also the timing of the change insistence that no one discuss it. The whole thing felt very wrong and still does to me.

This most recent change isn't in and of itself particularly Earth shaking but again taken with current social trends the timing of it is suspect as is the motivation for the change.

Further.....maybe one day someone in authority will take it upon themselves to explain the change of this ordinance.
Is it backwards compatible so that women who promised to obey their husbands under the previous ordinance......do they now automatically revert to the new ordinance? Even though that's not what they promised?
Or are there endowed sealed women under 2 different covenants?
Obviously if an explanation ever accompanied these changes I wouldn't need to ask. But it never does.
Willing to bet my Bishop doesn't even know...

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:16 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:16 am

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:08 am

I actually haven’t made the claim you say I made. You take what I actually say and stretch it to mean all kinds of nonsense.

No, you did.

Do you or do you not submit to your boss?
Does the scripture states wives are to submit to their husbands?

To the first, clearly you do but you don't claim your boss "commands me like a child".
To the second, you believe no because you believe for wives to submit means the man should "command her like a child".

You are being hypocritical in your own definitions of submit.
When you submit to your boss-you don't feel you are being "commanded like a child"
But when a wive submits to her husband she IS being "commanded like a child".

Hypocrisy.

Okay buddy

It's pretty obvious. It's only YOU who believes when a wive submits to a husband, that the husband is supposed to "command her like a child".

But when an employee submits to their boss, nope just change the definition to mean something else.

It's you who have a messed up idea of what submit means in the context of men and women b/c you use a definition for the word submit that you don't use in other contexts.

Boss/employer relationships could be compared to Bishop/counselor relationships - wouldn't you say? And I think we should acknowledge that Boss/employer relationships are man-made and some are great and other's are not.
Isn't it proper for the Bishop to not look at his relationship with his counselor, not as one of submission, that the counselor is obligated to submit to whatever the Bishop says like a parent-child relationship, but as a counselor, or someone to follow and listen to? Someone who counsels with that person and is part of the revelation process? This is the ideal, and the ideal for the husband and wife as well. The man/woman relationship that resembles the parent/child relationship, is part of the curse. God knew this would be how men would treat woman because of their weakness. Therefore it is a curse, that we should all pray may be lifted.

Stahura wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:02 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:43 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 8:53 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 8:40 am

I wasn’t aware that women were not to submit to their husbands. That’s still scripture. No revelation has been issued to change that.

Nope. It's not taught in the Temple anymore.
The Temple changes in January were very big. The Temple rites had women covenanting with God to submit to their husband. The Temple rites today have women covenanting with directly with God.

Here is what the Come Follow Me Manual states about Ephesian 5:22.
Ephesians 5:22:"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord"
Come Follow Me commentary.
"It is important to note that Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:22 were written in the context of the social customs of his era."
----
Basically, it's done away with.

This is a test for you brother, don’t get an ego that God trumps you in your marriage. Your crying that God took your spot? Take it up with him and you tell him that he cannot do this to you because you read here and here that she belongs to you first, not him. See how fast he can humble you. Picking a fight you will loose. It’s a test, even Abraham was asked to kill his only son God gave him and lose his promise of numerous seed. Can you humble yourself enough to pass this test? What God gives he can take, ask King Saul. Your wife is not property to any man, she is a gift from God.

AMEN

Possible the best comment on this thread!

Striker wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:34 am

[email protected] wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:32 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 10:09 pm

Sirius wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 10:00 pm One of the first things shown in the Garden of Eden, is the Patriarchal Order. God establishes this very clearly. What is usually missed is how Satan manipulates this order. In the scriptures we see he bypasses Adam altogether. He approaches Eve, and deceives her. Getting her instead to go and persuade her husband Adam, who follows her lead. God, returning, questions what is happening. He first inquires of Adam, who states his wife has gotten him to partake of the forbidden fruit. God then inquires of Eve, who states that Satan beguiled her. After hearing the events, we see God point out how they went outside the proper order, explain consequences resulting from straying from what was intially established. God then reestablishes the proper order, the Patriarchal Order, before removing them from the Garden.

This has been removed from the endowment now of course. But still is clearly shown in the scriptures. Many seem to be celebrating or lamenting the changes, and squabbling about equality. But I fear we're missing the subtle craftiness of Satan in beguiling a majority, to seek after and praise, an order other than the one Father has established. We may not fully appreciate the Patriarchal Order, because we haven't fully felt the effects of replacing it, for something our own. So as more of these changes take place over time, ask yourself, if this is becoming more in line with the Patriarchal Order, or something more socially acceptable, something more progressive and on par with the times.

Since it’s Gods prophet doing the changes perhaps we do need to be questioning our long held beliefs of what we think with our limited information given. Respecting the prophet of God sure has been replaced with an improper order of thinking we have every right to question his authority and voice and not follow or sustain him. Do men obey this Patriarchal order as they should? If we think about it, how many men are not following the admonition of the Lord through the voice of his prophet? So we can be upset that women are trying to thwart the proper order all day long but we need to look at the bigger picture.

I see no issue with any of the temple ceremony changes and do not see this as anything bad.

Either way, those willing to follow the word of God through his anointed prophet and keep their covenants and strive to live righteously and repent often and seek to obtain the gift of charity through becoming Christ-like will all be the ones who will be happy in the end. There is a sifting and our requirements are still the same and quite simple.

The Temple changes were a huge HUGE red flag for me as most people who've seen my posts know well. Whether you like that particular change or not the fact is it fundumentally changed the nature of the relationship between men and women and between husband and wife and I just don't know how anyone can see it any other way. Having a Prophet to guide us and give new revelation as needed is one thing but that went beyond that and it was a really unsettling change for me. Plus it wasn't just the change itself, it was also the timing of the change insistence that no one discuss it. The whole thing felt very wrong and still does to me.

This most recent change isn't in and of itself particularly Earth shaking but again taken with current social trends the timing of it is suspect as is the motivation for the change.

Further.....maybe one day someone in authority will take it upon themselves to explain the change of this ordinance.
Is it backwards compatible so that women who promised to obey their husbands under the previous ordinance......do they now automatically revert to the new ordinance? Even though that's not what they promised?
Or are there endowed sealed women under 2 different covenants?
Obviously if an explanation ever accompanied these changes I wouldn't need to ask. But it never does.
Willing to bet my Bishop doesn't even know...

It's nuts when you think it through. The temple marriage ceremony before the alter, for one, doesn't make any sense anymore...

Also the idea that there will be celestial marriages in heaven where some women are under covenant to her husband for eternity and some are not.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:29 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:10 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:48 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:35 pm
Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
----
Women wanted power and men acquiesced to give it to them, so they get it. When you pervert the true order of God, you get women and children ruling.

It's gonna be fun to see the consequences of these things down the road.

This scripture can easily be about how weak men become and follow women (pretty body and nice voice gets a man to be a fool) and how children can manipulate a weak man (I don’t want my kids mad at me) This is not about women taking power from men it’s about men not exercising their own power over themselves.

I actually think this scripture is symbolically describing how the religious and political leaders will become weak. Has nothing to do with literal women or children "ruling." These weak leaders cause the people to err.

Okay, well if symbolic then we understand the term “women” but do you know of a reference to “children” as a symbolic meaning? I have a symbol book but I’m not sure the term child or children is in there. Unless children is supposed to be the simple humble people who are teachable? Help me understand more of what your saying

What I mean is that I think Isaiah was intending for "children" and "women" to simply represent those leaders who are weak, in their faith, righteousness and leadership. Everyone knows that children and woman are weak physically, therefore, he is making a statement that the religious and political leaders of that day (and our day) were not strong leaders and were weak when it came to leading righteously. I could be wrong, but that's how I like to interpret it rather than looking for a literal fulfillment of women and children being leaders and causing people to err.