LDS Freedom Forum

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am

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

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.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:43 am

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am

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

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

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.

It would make more sense if both gave and received. It is okay now, but before the change it didn't make sense at all. How can you receive something that isn't given to you?

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:41 amI could be wrong, but that's how I like to interpret it

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:05 am

Fiannan wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 10:47 am

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.

The way things are going today most LDS women will be lifelong spinsters. So I suppose, like nuns, they can covenant directly to God.

Perhaps that’s what they want.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:26 am

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

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.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:47 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:41 amI could be wrong, but that's how I like to interpret it

This is not how one searches for truth. It’s not about what you would like it to be. It’s about what truly is. If you should discover that the truth opposes everything that your culture has raised you to be comfortable with, will you side with the truth over what you would like the truth to be?

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:35 am

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

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

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

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:49 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:26 am

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

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

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.

Isn't the ideal that a wife want to do something rather than be forced to? Arguing that a wife should be commanded to do something out of obligation or fear is not the ideal. You should work towards wanting you wife to make choices out of free will and not because she feels compelled to obey or submit to you unless she too is 100% on board.

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:46 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:43 am

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am

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

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.

It would make more sense if both gave and received. It is okay now, but before the change it didn't make sense at all. How can you receive something that isn't given to you?

Who authorizes the wife to pass through the veil, God or her husband?

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:51 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:47 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:41 amI could be wrong, but that's how I like to interpret it

This is not how one searches for truth. It’s not about what you would like it to be. It’s about what truly is. If you should discover that the truth opposes everything that your culture has raised you to be comfortable with, will you side with the truth over what you would like the truth to be?

So you claim to have received revelation on the true meaning of this verse? While I feel this is what the spirit has inspired me with, if the Lord corrects me someday on this interpretation I will gladly admit my error.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:54 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:49 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:26 am

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

Isn't the ideal that a wife want to do something rather than be forced to? Arguing that a wife should be commanded to do something out of obligation or fear is not the ideal. You should work towards wanting you wife to make choices out of free will and not because she feels compelled to obey or submit to you unless she too is 100% on board.

Obedience is not force or compulsion. I am to obey church leaders but there is no violence done to me if I choose to disobey. Obedience doesn’t require someone to do something they know is wrong. And it doesn’t authorize a leader to use force or threats of force to compel obedience.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:49 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:26 am

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

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

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.

Isn't the ideal that a wife want to do something rather than be forced to? Arguing that a wife should be commanded to do something out of obligation or fear is not the ideal. You should work towards wanting you wife to make choices out of free will and not because she feels compelled to obey or submit to you unless she too is 100% on board.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:55 am

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:46 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:43 am

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am

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.

It would make more sense if both gave and received. It is okay now, but before the change it didn't make sense at all. How can you receive something that isn't given to you?

Who authorizes the wife to pass through the veil, God or her husband?

Then I guess you have to admit that it was wrong before the change. The wife could never have "received" her husband before if she only belonged to him. If she received him then he would belong to her as well. If what I think you are getting at is true, than it should have been wife gives and husband receives. But I think we need to progress past this idea of women being the property of man.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:57 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:54 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:49 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:26 am
And women don't want to submit.

Welcome to relationship hell between men and women.

Isn't the ideal that a wife want to do something rather than be forced to? Arguing that a wife should be commanded to do something out of obligation or fear is not the ideal. You should work towards wanting you wife to make choices out of free will and not because she feels compelled to obey or submit to you unless she too is 100% on board.

Obedience is not force or compulsion. I am to obey church leaders but there is no violence done to me if I choose to disobey. Obedience doesn’t require someone to do something they know is wrong. And it doesn’t authorize a leader to use force or threats of force to compel obedience.

Agreed, that is why we need to make sure women do not feel threatened by their husband's authority.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:54 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:35 am

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

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

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.

In Bishop/counselor relationship the same dynamic applies. The Bishop absolutely should rely upon his counselors for guidance and help. However, what happens when the Bishop prays and feels something should happen and the counselor prays and says no something else should happen.

Yes, they should discuss it and hopefully come to a unified decision-but given that human relationships are what they are, we just aren't going to come to an agreement on everything. To make believe that we are in a Bishopric, a marriage or in anything in life means the things you have to decide on aren't really that hard. At some point the Bishop takes the counsel and states we need to move in this direction.

The counselor has the choice, he can either submit his will to the Bishop and trust the Bishop is receiving better revelation than he is. OR he can refuse to submit and become rebellious. At the end of the day, one of the two-either the Bishop or the counselor, submits his will to the other.

You can claim, well they should both get the same answer-yeah if we lived in a perfect world, where everyone knew and interpreted the Spirit the same way, great that would be wonderful.

But I prefer to live in the real world and not some fantasy, made up world.

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:59 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:57 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:54 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:49 am

Isn't the ideal that a wife want to do something rather than be forced to? Arguing that a wife should be commanded to do something out of obligation or fear is not the ideal. You should work towards wanting you wife to make choices out of free will and not because she feels compelled to obey or submit to you unless she too is 100% on board.

Obedience is not force or compulsion. I am to obey church leaders but there is no violence done to me if I choose to disobey. Obedience doesn’t require someone to do something they know is wrong. And it doesn’t authorize a leader to use force or threats of force to compel obedience.

Agreed, that is why we need to make sure women do not feel threatened by their husband's authority.

??? This is totally illogical.

How does instruction in the Bible for "wives to submit", make women feel "threatened" by their husband's authority.

It is simply stating that husband HAVE the authority.

Valo wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 8:59 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.

Lord, please keep this man away from positions of authority in the Church!

Valo

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:18 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:59 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:57 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:54 am

Obedience is not force or compulsion. I am to obey church leaders but there is no violence done to me if I choose to disobey. Obedience doesn’t require someone to do something they know is wrong. And it doesn’t authorize a leader to use force or threats of force to compel obedience.

Agreed, that is why we need to make sure women do not feel threatened by their husband's authority.

??? This is totally illogical.

How does instruction in the Bible for "wives to submit", make women feel "threatened" by their husband's authority.

It is simply stating that husband HAVE the authority.

I never said that the words made women feel threatened. It is a husband's unrighteous dominion that make her feel threatened and unloved.

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:18 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:59 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:57 am

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:54 am

Obedience is not force or compulsion. I am to obey church leaders but there is no violence done to me if I choose to disobey. Obedience doesn’t require someone to do something they know is wrong. And it doesn’t authorize a leader to use force or threats of force to compel obedience.

Agreed, that is why we need to make sure women do not feel threatened by their husband's authority.

??? This is totally illogical.

How does instruction in the Bible for "wives to submit", make women feel "threatened" by their husband's authority.

It is simply stating that husband HAVE the authority.

I never said that the words made women feel threatened. It is a husband's unrighteous dominion that make her feel threatened and unloved.

gkearney wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 9:38 am

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 9:25 am?
Are there more abortions or less?

I would point out that there are indeed fewer abortions now than in the recent past.

U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... roe-v-wade

Serragon wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 9:39 am My prediction is that in the near future a new order of the priesthood will be revealed and it will be filled by the women of the church. The will be given the keys to direct welfare and charity work. They will also be given the authority to participate in blessings and passing the sacrament.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:21 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 12:18 pm

catcatinabox wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:59 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:57 am

Agreed, that is why we need to make sure women do not feel threatened by their husband's authority.

??? This is totally illogical.

How does instruction in the Bible for "wives to submit", make women feel "threatened" by their husband's authority.

It is simply stating that husband HAVE the authority.

I never said that the words made women feel threatened. It is a husband's unrighteous dominion that make her feel threatened and unloved.

And that has always been condemned. But obedience is a part of the covenant whether or explicit or not because that is what the scriptures teach.

Silas wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:58 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:55 am

GaelicVigil wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:46 am

Sarah wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 11:43 am

It would make more sense if both gave and received. It is okay now, but before the change it didn't make sense at all. How can you receive something that isn't given to you?

Who authorizes the wife to pass through the veil, God or her husband?

Then I guess you have to admit that it was wrong before the change. The wife could never have "received" her husband before if she only belonged to him. If she received him then he would belong to her as well. If what I think you are getting at is true, than it should have been wife gives and husband receives. But I think we need to progress past this idea of women being the property of man.

Why? Why did the Lord reveal the ordinances to Joseph Smith in the manner that he did? If the man was to give himself to the wife then couldn’t the Lord have revealed that to brother Joseph?