Women will be allowed to act as witness

[catcatinabox]

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.

Isaiah was a true prophet so his prophecy will come to pass. The women and children will rule and society will be almost near complete collapse

Exactly, which is why I'm not concerned about it.

Other posters claim those who don't agree with them are "raging" or some other nonsense, or they have such "anger" towards women, lol okay.

[GaelicVigil]

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.

So all those prophets just got it wrong, down through Joseph Smith and Thomas S Monson. Thank goodness for Pres. Nelson for correcting those wicked apostates before him.

Do you even hear how ridiculous that sounds?

And you miss my point. The wife cant GET into the Celestial Kingdom unless her husband allows it. Period. This is the whole temple marriage ceremony. How can she meet him at the veil if she does not need to hearken to him?

[[email protected]]

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:

So much this. Juvenile and ignorant doesn't even begin to describe the modern 2019 prespective of the past.

[catcatinabox]

It's going to be great when women are allowed to be ward/stake clerks and SS presidents.
I can't wait for the spike in adultery!

Maybe one day we can be like that one particular wonderful church lead by a woman who as a "present" to her subordinates, had them go into a sex shop and bought sex toys for them!

Buckle, up, it's gonna be fun!

[Sarah]

??? 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.

Exactly the Bible condemns the "striker". It's like there is no middle ground, the man is either exercising unrighteous dominion by proclaiming wives submit, or he must agree that he holds no authority and is not the head.

One simply cannot lead if the person you are leading doesn't submit. It is what leading means. To lead means others MUST submit to you. If no one submits to the leader, then he isn't a leader.

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

[Fiannan]

?
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

Maybe because they are using more preventative measures now?

Other factors cited in regards to less abortions in the USA:

Younger people are not communicating due to social media and that reduces dating and...

General Infertility caused by obesity.

Male infertility due to a lot of reasons.

Availability of porn as a substitute for relationships.

[Sarah]

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.

So all those prophets just got it wrong, down through Joseph Smith and Thomas S Monson. Thank goodness for Pres. Nelson for correcting those wicked apostates before him.

Do you even hear how ridiculous that sounds?

And you miss my point. The wife cant GET into the Celestial Kingdom unless her husband allows it. Period. This is the whole temple marriage ceremony. How can she meet him at the veil if she does not need to hearken to him?

They didn't necessarily have it wrong. When a husband brings a wife to the altar, by that action he is showing a sign that he is giving himself to be her husband, so he didn't need to say it. The wife, at the risk of not being there by her own will, had to acknowledge that she was giving herself to be a wife. So like I said before, they are both giving and receiving. By showing up to the altar, they demonstrate that they are giving of themselves. They both covenant to receive, and must go forward to show that they truly receive each other as a husband or wife.

[Zathura]

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:

So much this. Juvenile and ignorant doesn't even begin to describe the modern 2019 prespective of the past.

Is ignorant any better than rose colored?

Then again, rose colored is ignorant as well.

Such silliness. Poor poor guys. Please educate yourselves, you sound every bit as ignorant as sjw feminists

[GaelicVigil]

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.

Exactly the Bible condemns the "striker". It's like there is no middle ground, the man is either exercising unrighteous dominion by proclaiming wives submit, or he must agree that he holds no authority and is not the head.

One simply cannot lead if the person you are leading doesn't submit. It is what leading means. To lead means others MUST submit to you. If no one submits to the leader, then he isn't a leader.

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

That's not how God's Kingdom operates. Why do you think the entire endowment ceremony hammers the idea of hierarchy, ("return and report") over and over again? Gods house is a house of order. Christ takes orders from God, men take orders from Christ, and women take orders from their husbands. THAT is the eternal structure of the gospel that's been set since before the world was created.

[Zathura]

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.

Exactly the Bible condemns the "striker". It's like there is no middle ground, the man is either exercising unrighteous dominion by proclaiming wives submit, or he must agree that he holds no authority and is not the head.

One simply cannot lead if the person you are leading doesn't submit. It is what leading means. To lead means others MUST submit to you. If no one submits to the leader, then he isn't a leader.

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

That's not how God's Kingdom operates. Why do you think the entire endowment ceremony hammers the idea of hierarchy, ("return and report") over and over again? Gods house is a house of order. Christ takes orders from God, men take orders from Christ, and women take orders from their husbands. THAT is the eternal structure of the gospel that's been set since before the world was created.

Your idea of how the kingdom of god operates exists nowhere in the scriptures. What you see in the endowment with the ceremony was created by a man, and parts of it have been since removed by man. It was not divine, it was not revelation.

You’re taking unrelated scripture truths and trying to piece them together to prove that a household must have a single all powerful decision maker and rule maker and judge. Stop wresting them.

The only thing that says you can’t have order with co equal co leaders is you. You’re making stuff up.

[Valo]

Okay, and If I were to show you research that's been done on the harm that indoctrination and Christianity and religion causes children? Because it exists, it's out there. Will you be persuaded? Most definitely not. Not a chance. You make an appeal to research because it benefits you in this situation, but you'd reject it in other instances.

Paul lived in a time where women were treated even more poorly than they were in 1800. He wasn't immune to the cultural and traditional influences of his time. I'll believe until the day I die that Peter and Paul never once received a revelation that women should be forced to wear veils and that the woman is a lesser partner and must submit to the man along with their children. Many men misunderstand what it means to "preside". Many men somehow compare their marriage to a missionary companionship, which is ABSURD.

What you say doesn't go. It's what you both say that goes. You don't give and revoke things to your wife based on her "submissiveness". You don't command and she obeys. You don't get the final say. All of that is unrighteous dominion, and there's a reason the Lord said that ALMOST ALL MEN will do this, when they suppose they have power.

Man and woman are equal partners. Men who take issue with not being able to command women as if they were children have a difficult trial ahead of them.

The fact that Peter and Paul disagreed on another topic, and Paul ended up being right proves that they clearly had opinions and were WRONG despite the strong authoritative stance they took on a particular topic.

The proof is in the pudding.
As equality has been preached are relationships better or worse?
Are families stronger or weaker?
Are there more abortions or less?
Are there more children being raised righteously or less?

Clearly if the wife does not submit to the husband, then the bride of Christ does not need to submit to him.

That's not pudding. That's just you typing down ideas that are in your head.

Valo

Which part, all I did is ask a bunch of questions?

The Bride no longer submits to the Bridegroom-period. Rapid changes are coming.

Right. Questions are not pudding.

You said "proof is in the pudding" and then didn't provide any pudding, just questions.

Got any "data" aka "pudding"?

Also, your last statement about bride and bridegroom doesn't make sense to me. I think its because the idea is nonsensical, however, maybe I'm wrong. What I'm saying that I'm open to being corrected in my assumption.

It sounds like you are saying that if a woman who is married doesn't "submit" to her husband, then this absolutely means that the Church does not need to submit to Christ. Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, how do you justify this dichotomy?

Valo

[Zathura]

Behold the fruits of Brigham young in 2019

[GaelicVigil]

Then I guess you have to admit that it was wrong before the change.

They didn't necessarily have it wrong.

I can't have a reasonable gospel conversation with someone who can't even maintain the same position on a topic.

[catcatinabox]

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.

Exactly the Bible condemns the "striker". It's like there is no middle ground, the man is either exercising unrighteous dominion by proclaiming wives submit, or he must agree that he holds no authority and is not the head.

One simply cannot lead if the person you are leading doesn't submit. It is what leading means. To lead means others MUST submit to you. If no one submits to the leader, then he isn't a leader.

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

Because it can't work that way, it doesn't work that way in the real world. Why don't we have 2 prophets?

What does work is for each person to have their own sphere wherein they can lead. Delegation of responsibility.

You see this with the Bishop, he delegates responsibility to his counselors. As long as the counselor isn't screwing up big time, the Bishop isn't going to step in and take control; however if the counselor starts making some serious problems the Bishop is first going to counsel him and then if he doesn't "submit" to his counsel, he will direct him, if that still doesn't work at some point the Bishop will release him.

I'm convinced nobody understand anything about actually leading anymore. Head of household doesn't mean "micro-manager" of household, it means head-which is ensuring everything is done in a proper order.

Co-leaders doesn't work, there is no single institution in existence that functions with two equally authoritative individuals. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

[Sarah]

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.

No, the words make you feel threatened. You just above compared male/male relationship as if the counselor "gets his turn". That's not how it works.

Does the counselor feel "threatened" because the Bishop is the Authority figure?

Well, I know that a counselor can feel disrespected if the presiding authority does not listen, and is too dominating. I know this happens all the time. I know many counselors who have stopped trying to give their counsel or opinion, because the presiding authority doesn't listen, or puts too much pressure on them, or shows signs of disapproval if the counselor doesn't agree or go along with something. If a presiding authority shows any signs of disrespect or unlove towards a counselor for not doing what he or she wants, that is manipulative behavior and the counselor feels threatened with this kind of mistreatment if he or she does not always go along. This is exactly the kind of threatened feelings a wife has with a husband she doesn't trust listens to her or respects her feelings. She goes along to get along. And obviously this can go the other way where a husband doesn't trust that his wife cares about his views or feelings.

[Fiannan]

[GaelicVigil]

Exactly the Bible condemns the "striker". It's like there is no middle ground, the man is either exercising unrighteous dominion by proclaiming wives submit, or he must agree that he holds no authority and is not the head.

One simply cannot lead if the person you are leading doesn't submit. It is what leading means. To lead means others MUST submit to you. If no one submits to the leader, then he isn't a leader.

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

That's not how God's Kingdom operates. Why do you think the entire endowment ceremony hammers the idea of hierarchy, ("return and report") over and over again? Gods house is a house of order. Christ takes orders from God, men take orders from Christ, and women take orders from their husbands. THAT is the eternal structure of the gospel that's been set since before the world was created.

Your idea of how the kingdom of god operates exists nowhere in the scriptures. What you see in the endowment with the ceremony was created by a man, and parts of it have been since removed by man. It was not divine, it was not revelation.

You’re taking unrelated scripture truths and trying to piece them together to prove that a household must have a single all powerful decision maker and rule maker and judge. Stop wresting them.

The only thing that says you can’t have order with co equal co leaders is you. You’re making stuff up.

So you reject the endowment ceremony, you reject the various Scriptures on family roles in the New Testament, and you reject the LDS Prophets who added and testified of those principles in the temple. You're standing on very shaky ground, if any at all. I cant take your opinions seriously on this topic.

[Fiannan]

[Sarah]

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.

Exactly the Bible condemns the "striker". It's like there is no middle ground, the man is either exercising unrighteous dominion by proclaiming wives submit, or he must agree that he holds no authority and is not the head.

One simply cannot lead if the person you are leading doesn't submit. It is what leading means. To lead means others MUST submit to you. If no one submits to the leader, then he isn't a leader.

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

Because it can't work that way, it doesn't work that way in the real world. Why don't we have 2 prophets?

What does work is for each person to have their own sphere wherein they can lead. Delegation of responsibility.

You see this with the Bishop, he delegates responsibility to his counselors. As long as the counselor isn't screwing up big time, the Bishop isn't going to step in and take control; however if the counselor starts making some serious problems the Bishop is first going to counsel him and then if he doesn't "submit" to his counsel, he will direct him, if that still doesn't work at some point the Bishop will release him.

I'm convinced nobody understand anything about actually leading anymore. Head of household doesn't mean "micro-manager" of household, it means head-which is ensuring everything is done in a proper order.

Co-leaders doesn't work, there is no single institution in existence that functions with two equally authoritative individuals. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

I'm fine with a husband presiding. I like it actually, when it is done properly, in that he makes sure things get done and everyone feels loved and appreciated. But I think that presiding is so much more than expecting submission, and we should be stressing those other parts more than the expecting submission part. If properly done, a leader leads in a way that makes those around him want to follow him. If submission was so important in our church roles, we would use that language rather than simply "sustain" or "follow." These words would be better than submit, which I think gives the impression that the submitter has no will of their own. Husbands are so imperfect, as are wives of course. So if both are striving to submit to the Lord, than we will be in agreement and be united. That is where the stress should be - in submitting to the Lord's will - because the husband's will will not always be perfectly aligned with the Lord's. We should all be ONE in Christ.

[catcatinabox]

The proof is in the pudding.
As equality has been preached are relationships better or worse?
Are families stronger or weaker?
Are there more abortions or less?
Are there more children being raised righteously or less?

Clearly if the wife does not submit to the husband, then the bride of Christ does not need to submit to him.

That's not pudding. That's just you typing down ideas that are in your head.

Valo

Which part, all I did is ask a bunch of questions?

The Bride no longer submits to the Bridegroom-period. Rapid changes are coming.

Right. Questions are not pudding.

You said "proof is in the pudding" and then didn't provide any pudding, just questions.

Got any "data" aka "pudding"?

Also, your last statement about bride and bridegroom doesn't make sense to me. I think its because the idea is nonsensical, however, maybe I'm wrong. What I'm saying that I'm open to being corrected in my assumption.

It sounds like you are saying that if a woman who is married doesn't "submit" to her husband, then this absolutely means that the Church does not need to submit to Christ. Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, how do you justify this dichotomy?

Valo

Go research yourself-I'm not going to force-fed you data. You wouldn't believe it regardless so I'm not going to waste my time.

To you last point, it's not whether a particular wife submits, it's the idea.

The concept, the idea, the symbolism of the Church as the Bride of Christ submitting to the Bridegroom is built upon the concept, idea, symbolism of brides (i.e. wives) submitting to their husbands (bridegrooms).

Tear down the concept, idea and symbolism of wives submitting to their husband and you tear down the concept, idea, symbolism of the Bride of Christ submitting to Him.

Christ has not divorced the Church, but we have declared as a people we no longer submit to the Bridegroom. Which means, the Bride (i.e. the Church) is no going to begin to engage in all manner of behavior which the Bridegroom does not approve of.

We give lip service that we are Christ's Church, but we are no longer willing to submit to His commandments-consequently when the leaders of the Church ask what they should do about questions in the future, Christ is going to tell them, do whatever you want-you won't submit to me, so it doesn't matter what I say.

Which is why, women will get the Priesthood and shortly afterwards homosexual unions will be done.

But it's okay, I'm at peace with it, b/c it must happen, this is the way things must occur prior to the Bridegroom's coming.

[GaelicVigil]

Hollywood has been indoctrinating women for decades of how horrible it is to be a submissive wife.

https://youtu.be/ng9YjgN19to

[Zathura]

Why can't both husband and wife be co-leaders? Otherwise it places the wife in the same position as the children. Children grow up and become leaders (at least the boys). The girls are always in submission to a boy. Is it so hard to imagine having a true partnership or does one always have to have the final say. I think the ideal is that man and wife are of one mind and heart. One does not always feel obligated to follow if not in agreement. Obviously in all relationships, be it marriage or friendships or work/church relationships, there is always going to be dominant personalities who like to tell people what to do, and more submissive personalities. We need to strive for complete balance, where the leaders learn submission, and the followers learn how to lead.

That's not how God's Kingdom operates. Why do you think the entire endowment ceremony hammers the idea of hierarchy, ("return and report") over and over again? Gods house is a house of order. Christ takes orders from God, men take orders from Christ, and women take orders from their husbands. THAT is the eternal structure of the gospel that's been set since before the world was created.

Your idea of how the kingdom of god operates exists nowhere in the scriptures. What you see in the endowment with the ceremony was created by a man, and parts of it have been since removed by man. It was not divine, it was not revelation.

You’re taking unrelated scripture truths and trying to piece them together to prove that a household must have a single all powerful decision maker and rule maker and judge. Stop wresting them.

The only thing that says you can’t have order with co equal co leaders is you. You’re making stuff up.

So you reject the endowment ceremony, you reject the various Scriptures on family roles in the New Testament, and you reject the LDS Prophets who added and testified of those principles in the temple. You're standing on very shaky ground, if any at all. I cant take your opinions seriously on this topic.

Can’t help but notice you don’t actually quote the scriptures but make vague references to them. Any reason for that?

You also are on board with complaining about Man made endowment changes today but think it’s absurd that someone could care less about man made endowment changes in 1850?

It doesn’t bother you being inconsistent?

[Zathura]

You poor guys. People are mean to you because you think women should be the property of their husbands.

[Valo]

Our conditioning of Babylon is very prevalent. When did submitting become some horrible and derogatory thing? Christ, the greatest of us, showed the true power of submission in many aspects of his life. And taught the importance of the same. The acceptance of "equality" as the world defines and teaches, is toxic. It's nothing more than the doctrine of Satan. To be the same, to have the same all across the board, no matter what, regardless of choice or action. You are entitled to everything for just being. It removes accountability from the individual, thus rendering them an agent to be acted upon, rather then to act. It removes the need for an atonement, the need to repent or change. God has placed all creation in it's proper sphere and order, and commanded within that order and sphere. Satan's doctrine of equality and rights is alive and well within the church in all forms, and unfortunately is being celebrated as righteousness and progression.

Bullcrap, dude!

Equal = Equal value, equal standing, equal authority, equal necessity. Nobody within the context of this discussion and our Church is advocating for this idea that women should get something for nothing. You, either in ignorance or on purpose, are conflating the argument. I wouldn't think twice about it except for the fact that this tactic of creating a straw man is used so often during discussions that its hard to think you just made an honest mistake. But, forgive me if I've judged you wrong. Otherwise, you need to get real and stop making things up just so you can be right.

If submission is such a virtue and its so wonderful and nice, why don't you submit to me? Or, why don't you submit to your wife? If submission is so virtuous, submit, NOW! Oh, but, you said that God created spheres and orders and so that is why you don't submit because God put your in the top because you happen to have a penis. So, submission is wonderful if you have a vagina but horrible if you have a penis. Woohoo! I love logic!

Let's talk about "spheres and order". So, wasn't it God who placed the African Americans in to their proper place and sphere: Servants to white people. Am I right, or am I right? (Attention: I don't believe this for a second. I'm using this to make a point and to show how ridiculous your ARGUMENT is).

How is it evil for you to treat your wife exactly the same way that you want to be treated? How is it evil to esteem your wife as your equal? How is it evil for you to view your wife as your companion, partner, friend, who isn't required to submit to you and your guidance?

Valo

[Zathura]

It’s funny, educated conservatives and libertarians understand that there are benefits to authoritarian forms of governments, but they also understand that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that’s why they need checks and balances.

Somehow , for these Christian men who are almost all conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist , this thought process doesn’t translate to their marriage, where they somehow think the family will only survive if the man is an authoritarian figure who controls his wife and children.

This perplexes me.