Women will be allowed to act as witness

[catcatinabox]

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.

What does submit mean? It means to "to yield, resign or surrender to the power, will or authority of another; with the reciprocal pronoun."

For a husband to preside, means that the wife MUST submit. You can't preside over i.e. "to be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer.", someone who doesn't want to submit.

A husband presides a wife submits. Yes, exactly!

What you appear to be quibbling over is the actual use of the word "submit" and the different styles of "submission". All submission means is to yield one's will to another. That's it. Sometimes the one "submitting" thinks they need to be a doormat, sometimes the one being submitted to believes they need to be a brute.

I'm not talking about the styles (correct or incorrect) of submission, only that a husband presides and a wife submits.
It's simple and it's easy to understand.

What has been destroyed is the concept that a husband presides and a wife submits. It does NOT EXISTS in the Church anymore.

[GaelicVigil]

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?

Dude, I've posted the scriptures several times over in this thread already. 1 Corin 14, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 3, Article of Faith 5, D&C 6 & 7. You can also throw in D&C 132, but I have a hunch you reject that too.

These Scriptures describe how women should not teach, should not rule, should not usurp authority, should keep silence, should submit to their husbands, should not have the Priesthood, and cannot administer ordinances (including being witnesses) or serve missions without the Priesthood.

[GaelicVigil]

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

More bearing false witness. Is there a report button here?

[catcatinabox]

And this concept of no head, that men and women are "equal" will absolutely destroy relationships between men and women.
All these menfeminists have no idea what they are really advocating for.
Why? Because I guarantee you they actually have a household where their wives do submit and they do lead, OR their wive is their leader and they do what she wants.

You can't have co-leadership, it doesn't work. You can have individual leadership in spheres of influence, but you can't functionally have a combined unit where each is equal in power and authority. It just doesn't work.

[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.

You do see partnerships in the real world, and contractual partnerships. And like you said, each should have their own role or sphere. If one messes up enough that the other wants to leave the contract, then they can. But like brother Nibley pointed out, there was neither patriarchy or matriarchy in the garden. They each kept each other in check, a form of checks and balances. But when the checks didn't work and transgression happened, Eve was punished for her transgression by receiving the great curse that she received. Something necessary for all of us to experience the good and evil, or to experience righteous dominion vs. unrighteous dominion.

[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.

Men are always in submission to bosses, men are always in submission to other leaders. We are always in submission to others . . .
which is EXACTLY what the Scriptures state b/c it is the truth about reality.

Ephesian 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

It's the verse just prior to wives submitting themselves to their husbands.

[catcatinabox]

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.

You do see partnerships in the real world, and contractual partnerships. And like you said, each should have their own role or sphere. If one messes up enough that the other wants to leave the contract, then they can. But like brother Nibley pointed out, there was neither patriarchy or matriarchy in the garden. They each kept each other in check, a form of checks and balances. But when the checks didn't work and transgression happened, Eve was punished for her transgression by receiving the great curse that she received. Something necessary for all of us to experience the good and evil, or to experience righteous dominion vs. unrighteous dominion.

You don't understand, yes you see partnerships, but you NEVER see a 50-50 split in corporations or stocks, It's always a 51-49. 50-50 splits never go well . . .at all.

Sure prior to the Fall there wasn't Patriarchy or Matriarchy, but that was also before children and families and we ain't in the garden of Eden. I'd rather deal with reality than some make-believe fantasy about how just b/c Pres. Nelson changed the temple the curse (only related to women of course) is removed and it's like the Garden of Eden. That's just fantasy.

[Fiannan]

So, submission is wonderful if you have a vagina but horrible if you have a penis. Woohoo! I love logic!

Just curious, do you think that is all the difference there is between men and women?

[Sarah]

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.

What does submit mean? It means to "to yield, resign or surrender to the power, will or authority of another; with the reciprocal pronoun."

For a husband to preside, means that the wife MUST submit. You can't preside over i.e. "to be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer.", someone who doesn't want to submit.

A husband presides a wife submits. Yes, exactly!

What you appear to be quibbling over is the actual use of the word "submit" and the different styles of "submission". All submission means is to yield one's will to another. That's it. Sometimes the one "submitting" thinks they need to be a doormat, sometimes the one being submitted to believes they need to be a brute.

I'm not talking about the styles (correct or incorrect) of submission, only that a husband presides and a wife submits.
It's simple and it's easy to understand.

What has been destroyed is the concept that a husband presides and a wife submits. It does NOT EXISTS in the Church anymore.

This is where I think the mistake is, in assuming that preside equals expecting or demanding submission. Preside can mean simply to watch over, to counsel, to lead in work or spiritual activities. Who decided that to preside means to expect submission?

[catcatinabox]

So, submission is wonderful if you have a vagina but horrible if you have a penis. Woohoo! I love logic!

Just curious, do you think that is all the difference there is between men and women?

That's what it comes down to . ..because men and women are "equal".

Is it any wonder that transgenderism is on the rise?

Modern femininity tells everyone men and women are the same. Of course, if that is true then why shouldn't someone be able to simply change their gender. We are the same, so it should make no difference if one proclaims they are male or female.

[Sirius]

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.

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).



Valo

Do you reject the fact that choices you make here affect your position in the next life? Would you reject your choices before this life had effect on your current situation in this life? Do you believe there to be advantages and disadvantages in our former life, here, and in the eternities? How do these advantages and disadvantages come about, and God still remain just?

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Is this scripture just showing how ridiculous my "ARGUMENT" is? Would it be unreasonable to understand from this, and other scriptures that our choices have EVERYTHING to do with our advantages, disadvantages, roles, blessings, opportunities, strengths, weaknesses, and on and on.. whether in this life, our past life, or in the eternities? You can choose to not believe this for all the seconds. Doesn't change the truth.

I apologize for triggering you with my comments on submission. But I will not change my understanding of it being a great virtue.

[SettingDogStar]

And this concept of no head, that men and women are "equal" will absolutely destroy relationships between men and women.
All these menfeminists have no idea what they are really advocating for.
Why? Because I guarantee you they actually have a household where their wives do submit and they do lead, OR their wive is their leader and they do what she wants.

You can't have co-leadership, it doesn't work. You can have individual leadership in spheres of influence, but you can't functionally have a combined unit where each is equal in power and authority. It just doesn't work.

Doesn’t destroy my marriage. Interesting. Did you do a poll or something?

[Sarah]

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.

You do see partnerships in the real world, and contractual partnerships. And like you said, each should have their own role or sphere. If one messes up enough that the other wants to leave the contract, then they can. But like brother Nibley pointed out, there was neither patriarchy or matriarchy in the garden. They each kept each other in check, a form of checks and balances. But when the checks didn't work and transgression happened, Eve was punished for her transgression by receiving the great curse that she received. Something necessary for all of us to experience the good and evil, or to experience righteous dominion vs. unrighteous dominion.

You don't understand, yes you see partnerships, but you NEVER see a 50-50 split in corporations or stocks, It's always a 51-49. 50-50 splits never go well . . .at all.

Sure prior to the Fall there wasn't Patriarchy or Matriarchy, but that was also before children and families and we ain't in the garden of Eden. I'd rather deal with reality than some make-believe fantasy about how just b/c Pres. Nelson changed the temple the curse (only related to women of course) is removed and it's like the Garden of Eden. That's just fantasy.

Well, I believe we are very close to the garden and this is how we are getting ready for it. We live in a telestial world where we have bosses. Everyone has a boss or is a boss themselves. But in the Terrestial sphere when we will be commanded to live a Celestial Law in Zion, we are commanded to be ONE - perfectly united in love and respect. That means we each have our jobs, and we give each other the freedom to do our jobs, but we realize that we can't control everything, that we need each other to do different jobs for us and we can't control everything ourselves. We have to learn to respect everyone's agency and have a complete balance of independence and dependence on one another. No one should take advantage of another's weakness, in demanding more control because of a position of power.

[catcatinabox]

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.

What does submit mean? It means to "to yield, resign or surrender to the power, will or authority of another; with the reciprocal pronoun."

For a husband to preside, means that the wife MUST submit. You can't preside over i.e. "to be set over for the exercise of authority; to direct, control and govern, as the chief officer.", someone who doesn't want to submit.

A husband presides a wife submits. Yes, exactly!

What you appear to be quibbling over is the actual use of the word "submit" and the different styles of "submission". All submission means is to yield one's will to another. That's it. Sometimes the one "submitting" thinks they need to be a doormat, sometimes the one being submitted to believes they need to be a brute.

I'm not talking about the styles (correct or incorrect) of submission, only that a husband presides and a wife submits.
It's simple and it's easy to understand.

What has been destroyed is the concept that a husband presides and a wife submits. It does NOT EXISTS in the Church anymore.

This is where I think the mistake is, in assuming that preside equals expecting or demanding submission. Preside can mean simply to watch over, to counsel, to lead in work or spiritual activities. Who decided that to preside means to expect submission?

lol, You see it but you don't want to see it.

Because you can't preside without submission.

I'm going to make this simple and I use this example not to show relationships between men and women but to show the reality of preside and submit.

A father "presides" over Scripture reading. What do you do when your 5 year old says no! and starts a tantrum? The child is not submitting, the child is in a state of rebellion. Okay so you claim the father is to "lead". Well you're 5-year-old doesn't want to "follow"! What do you do?

Now a brute could yell and scream at the child and stomp his feet and say "I'm the leader you must submit!".
A non-leader could just say, well I guess you don't want to submit so we won't do anything (which means the father is now submitting HIS will to the child's will).
A leader could tell the child, go to your room I will not tolerant this rebellion.

The point remains you simply cannot "preside" over someone who isn't willing to "submit". The person who is unwilling to submit will simply throw a tantrum-or as an adult cause problems, they will make it so hard that the leader cannot "preside".

So yes, presiding means you expect submission. If you don't you won't lead.

[catcatinabox]

And this concept of no head, that men and women are "equal" will absolutely destroy relationships between men and women.
All these menfeminists have no idea what they are really advocating for.
Why? Because I guarantee you they actually have a household where their wives do submit and they do lead, OR their wive is their leader and they do what she wants.

You can't have co-leadership, it doesn't work. You can have individual leadership in spheres of influence, but you can't functionally have a combined unit where each is equal in power and authority. It just doesn't work.

Doesn’t destroy my marriage. Interesting. Did you do a poll or something?

You don't have a "co-equal" marriage. Either you submit to her or she submits to you.

[MMbelieve]

The point of hearkening and submission to your husband goes back to Adam and Eve. Eve was under no covenant to obey Adam. That's why she took the fruit and broke the law. God is teaching us the eternal nature of women and hypergamy and puts her under covenant to obey her husband.

It's the most foundational law of the plan of happiness. You jack with that law, you're going to be I a world of hurt.

Like the men who jacked with the law and messed it all up long before any change in wording happened?

[Valo]

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.

Go research myself? YOU SAID "PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING". I didn't say that. You did. Give me some pudding!

Why would you think I am asking you to force feed me? How stupid for you to say such a thing. When did I ever suggest you force feed me?

Dude, basically, you don't have any data to back up what you are saying. Your fake excuses have nothing to do with anything. I'm not asking to be force fed and that hasn't ever been suggested, so, that isn't the reason you have no pudding. You know its not my responsibility to research ideas that you are trying to suggest as real/true, especially after you declare, "The proof is in the pudding". So, that isn't it the reason. Furthermore, I happen to be a good, moral, and ethical person. If you present me with legitimate data, then I will consider that data and accept any conclusions that are supported by the data. You would not be wasting your time if you were to abide by the rules of rational discourse, be respectable, honest, and true in your presentation of your ideas, etc. That isn't the reason either.

Recap:

catcatinabox: Since this "equality" doctrine has been taught in the Church, abortions have increased, relationships are worse, marriages are worse, less children are being born, etc. and all of this is because of and due to the "equality" doctrine. In fact, not only is this my opinion, but, "THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING".

Valo: Oh, can you provide the data that backs up your assertions and that demonstrates the evils of "equality" doctrine?


catcatinabox: I'm not going to prove my words because I don't have any proof and I am just saying things that are in my mind. However, I am not going to admit this fact, but instead I'm going to be unethical and try to make Valo think that it is Valo's fault as to why I don't provide any proof to back up my words. I'm going to do try to blame Valo for my negligence by saying things that are dishonest about Valo, like he wants to be force fed or that he wouldn't believe my proof anyways (since that Valo is such vile person, you know).

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.

What you are saying makes no logical sense whatsoever. First of all, understanding a symbol differently doesn't change reality or facts. Secondly, just because we might forsake a traditional concept of what it means for a wife to "submit" in favor of something different, it does not therefore follow that the Church no longer submits to Jesus Christ. Secondly, if I destroy all crosses, then does that mean that we can no longer accept the fact that Jesus died on the cross? Of course not!

Rejecting the idea that women must submit to their husbands doesn't mean that the Church ALSO no longer submits to Jesus Christ.

What needs to happen is to realize what it means to "submit". What needs to happen is to understand the symbolism better.

Valo

[Zathura]

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

More bearing false witness. Is there a report button here?

Yep, three dots, report button pops up.

[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.

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).



Valo

Do you reject the fact that choices you make here affect your position in the next life? Would you reject your choices before this life had effect on your current situation in this life? Do you believe there to be advantages and disadvantages in our former life, here, and in the eternities? How do these advantages and disadvantages come about, and God still remain just?

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Is this scripture just showing how ridiculous my "ARGUMENT" is? Would it be unreasonable to understand from this, and other scriptures that our choices have EVERYTHING to do with our advantages, disadvantages, roles, blessings, opportunities, strengths, weaknesses, and on and on.. whether in this life, our past life, or in the eternities? You can choose to not believe this for all the seconds. Doesn't change the truth.

I apologize for triggering you with my comments on submission. But I will not change my understanding of it being a great virtue.

Stop gaslighting and deal with the content of my post. You haven't done anything to address the ridiculous nature of your position.

Nobody is triggered except for apparently you guys who don't like women being esteemed the same as men.

The reality is that women get to stand as witnesses. That's it. All this other jazz about eternity, eternal consequences, the sky is falling kind of stuff, is nonsense. And if it's not nonsense, you and your team haven't done anything to alleviate that perception.

Valo

[catcatinabox]

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.

Go research myself? YOU SAID "PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING". I didn't say that. You did. Give me some pudding!

Why would you think I am asking you to force feed me? How stupid for you to say such a thing. When did I ever suggest you force feed me?

Dude, basically, you don't have any data to back up what you are saying. Your fake excuses have nothing to do with anything. I'm not asking to be force fed and that hasn't ever been suggested, so, that isn't the reason you have no pudding. You know its not my responsibility to research ideas that you are trying to suggest as real/true, especially after you declare, "The proof is in the pudding". So, that isn't it the reason. Furthermore, I happen to be a good, moral, and ethical person. If you present me with legitimate data, then I will consider that data and accept any conclusions that are supported by the data. You would not be wasting your time if you were to abide by the rules of rational discourse, be respectable, honest, and true in your presentation of your ideas, etc. That isn't the reason either.

Recap:

catcatinabox: Since this "equality" doctrine has been taught in the Church, abortions have increased, relationships are worse, marriages are worse, less children are being born, etc. and all of this is because of and due to the "equality" doctrine. In fact, not only is this my opinion, but, "THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING".

Valo: Oh, can you provide the data that backs up your assertions and that demonstrates the evils of "equality" doctrine?


catcatinabox: I'm not going to prove my words because I don't have any proof and I am just saying things that are in my mind. However, I am not going to admit this fact, but instead I'm going to be unethical and try to make Valo think that it is Valo's fault as to why I don't provide any proof to back up my words. I'm going to do try to blame Valo for my negligence by saying things that are dishonest about Valo, like he wants to be force fed or that he wouldn't believe my proof anyways (since that Valo is such vile person, you know).

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.

What you are saying makes no logical sense whatsoever. First of all, understanding a symbol differently doesn't change reality or facts. Secondly, just because we might forsake a traditional concept of what it means for a wife to "submit" in favor of something different, it does not therefore follow that the Church no longer submits to Jesus Christ. Secondly, if I destroy all crosses, then does that mean that we can no longer accept the fact that Jesus died on the cross? Of course not!

Rejecting the idea that women must submit to their husbands doesn't mean that the Church ALSO no longer submits to Jesus Christ.

What needs to happen is to realize what it means to "submit". What needs to happen is to understand the symbolism better.

Valo

"Rejecting the idea that women must submit to their husbands doesn't mean that the Church ALSO no longer submits to Jesus Christ.
What needs to happen is to realize what it means to "submit". What needs to happen is to understand the symbolism better. "

Except the Church has fundamentally rejected even the very concept that wives submit. It's not that we need to understand the symbolism better-it's that the Church has rejected even the symbolism.

You can't make the claim, women no longer submit to their husbands and then turn right around and claim we need to understand what it means to submit better.

[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.

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.

God is perfect - Christ can trust him, Christ is perfect - men can trust him - men are not perfect - women can't trust them, unless they earn that trust. The curse is that woman are under the influences of wicked men, or at the very least, imperfect men who tend to be self-centered. So this is not an ideal set-up for woman. We have checks and balances to deal with imperfect men ruling in gov. and we acknowledge that constitutional government as being an inspired way to govern to accommodate the weaknesses of men. We should have the same balance of power in marriage to deal with the imperfections of men.

We do learn in the Endowment that our Father in Heaven is over all things, but we don't get the entire picture of how Heaven functions. There is a story I read in one of the primary manuals that tells of one of the prophets seeing in vision a council occurring in heaven, with Christ and J.S. and other leaders in attendance there along with the father of the man they were counseling about. They asked the father what he thought should happen, and that is what the decision ended up being, what the father of the man suggested. Christ didn't dictate or command the outcome. When we can't get it right and figure it out ourselves he does command, but the preferred route is counseling together to come to a united and inspired decsion.

[MMbelieve]

And this concept of no head, that men and women are "equal" will absolutely destroy relationships between men and women.
All these menfeminists have no idea what they are really advocating for.
Why? Because I guarantee you they actually have a household where their wives do submit and they do lead, OR their wive is their leader and they do what she wants.

You can't have co-leadership, it doesn't work. You can have individual leadership in spheres of influence, but you can't functionally have a combined unit where each is equal in power and authority. It just doesn't work.

Doesn’t destroy my marriage. Interesting. Did you do a poll or something?

You don't have a "co-equal" marriage. Either you submit to her or she submits to you.

Yes, if one needs power.
I wonder if two co-workers can be on the same footing on a task together and get it done without establishing who’s boss over who? That’s right, likely men cannot because they must operate in a well defined power structure based usually on strength. And they get it! Women do not.
Women? Why do women fall under the SOP of how males operate? Do not treat your woman like a man. She will lose her feminine nature and gentleness faster than you can say sorry. Men need to be sure to not enter-mingle woman’s nature with their nature and seek to be a boss or establish a power struggle of authority. Women NATURALLY want you and admire you and look up to you and seek your things you offer as a man. Bring up that she has to obey you and you ruin it all. It’s already naturally there and women want to follow and support and sustain their husbands. But you guys are stuck on the wording as if that can change a woman’s nature. Be a good man and she is butter for you.

This whole thing is being discussed without the heart involved.

[Zathura]

How is it that the initial creation of the endowment ceremony is held as sacred but somehow when today it’s adjusted in the exact same manner today as it was by Brigham Young all those years ago people get all bent out of shape? I don’t get it. The only explanation is that it’s the only thing they have to hold onto to prove that man needs to have power over the woman.

[catcatinabox]

Go research myself? YOU SAID "PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING". I didn't say that. You did. Give me some pudding!

I've already provided you with the questions you need to ask. I'm giving you the pudding.

Since equality has been preached (~1950s) are marriage rates higher or lower?
Since that time are divorces rates higher or lower?
Since that time are women happier or less happy?
Since that time are children more happy or less happy?
Since that time are more children being raised in stable homes or not?
Are their more children in day-care today vs. then?

I'm giving you the pudding. You claim you'd believe me-but you don't. You won't even investigate it yourself.

Go research the data.

I'm not going to provide the data for you. I'm providing you the ingredients to make the pudding. If you won't even put forth the effort to see if the ingredients make the pudding then you won't believe the pudding I put in front of you is good.

[catcatinabox]

And this concept of no head, that men and women are "equal" will absolutely destroy relationships between men and women.
All these menfeminists have no idea what they are really advocating for.
Why? Because I guarantee you they actually have a household where their wives do submit and they do lead, OR their wive is their leader and they do what she wants.

You can't have co-leadership, it doesn't work. You can have individual leadership in spheres of influence, but you can't functionally have a combined unit where each is equal in power and authority. It just doesn't work.

Doesn’t destroy my marriage. Interesting. Did you do a poll or something?

You don't have a "co-equal" marriage. Either you submit to her or she submits to you.

Yes, if one needs power.
I wonder if two co-workers can be on the same footing on a task together and get it done without establishing who’s boss over who? That’s right, likely men cannot because they must operate in a well defined power structure based usually on strength. And they get it! Women do not.
Women? Why do women fall under the SOP of how males operate? Do not treat your woman like a man. She will lose her feminine nature and gentleness faster than you can say sorry. Men need to be sure to not enter-mingle woman’s nature with their nature and seek to be a boss or establish a power struggle of authority. Women NATURALLY want you and admire you and look up to you and seek your things you offer as a man. Bring up that she has to obey you and you ruin it all. It’s already naturally there and women want to follow and support and sustain their husbands. But you guys are stuck on the wording as if that can change a woman’s nature. Be a good man and she is butter for you.

This whole thing is being discussed without the heart involved.

Oh come on, now you are claiming that women don't have a hierarchical social status, give me a break.

Women have just the same emotions as men they just manifest it differently. Women don't in general physically fight-but they will sure back-bite, be passive-aggresive and destroy a career if you cross her wrong.

"Be a good man and she is butter for you." Yeap, be a good puppy now- here's a bone for you!. But the minute you're not a "good man" (whatever that means!) and boom you are in the doghouse!