Area Authority (Seventy) said Job 38:7 was "sexist!"???

[marc]

Study Hebrew. Research the original texts. "Morning stars" = kowkab, which is a masculine noun (kinda sounds familiar if you've read Pearl of Great Price. Hebrew "kowkab" means "star" but more specifically, "of Messiah, brothers, youth, numerous progeny." If you read Isaiah and the book of Revelation, you will discover that both Satan and Jesus are referred to as morning stars. It begs the question, why "morning" and why "star"? What do these terms symbolize? Don't rely on Modern English versions for your understanding. Dig into what the authors were conveying. Then you will begin to see many silly interpretations that are uninspired.

[marc]

Is calling Jesus Christ the "Son" of God sexist? Gimme a break!

[Believing Joseph]

Hmm. So is he saying that even though Eve didn’t have knowledge yet (before eating the fruit she had no knowledge, remember?), she somehow had great wisdom?? That does not make sense to me. Being beguiled (her phrasing) doesn’t sound like a wise choice being made to me. Could it be both a wise choice and a beguiled one at the same time? That seems like a stretch.

It seems to me as though the idea behind the garden story, at least in Lehi's version of it, is that Adam and Eve were "in a state of innocence" and they "knew no sin." So even though, on the one hand, they were told not to eat the forbidden fruit and Eve was indeed beguiled into doing it, on the other hand, for them to have a obeyed the command indefinitely would have been more a sign of incuriosity than of any actual virtue.

Once Adam and Eve were out in the world and able to experience good and evil, they were expected to learn to choose the good so that they could return to God.

[Sarah]

President Nelson said this:
“We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise.”

Hmm. So is he saying that even though Eve didn’t have knowledge yet (before eating the fruit she had no knowledge, remember?), she somehow had great wisdom?? That does not make sense to me. Being beguiled (her phrasing) doesn’t sound like a wise choice being made to me. Could it be both a wise choice and a beguiled one at the same time? That seems like a stretch.

It might be a stretch but I think it's possible. Her saying she was beguiled is simply stating the facts, that she was tempted and charmed by Satan and his offer. She didn't realize it was Satan, so she was deceived, but she might have had the wisdom to know that she had a choice to make between life or death, and that choosing death was the only way to have seed, and that this descent had to be her and Adam's choice. God could not force them to become mortal. Maybe she realized that was the sacrifice she needed to make to progress. Even children in their innocence who do not have knowledge of good and evil, can still choose what they think will make them happy or others happy.

[sandman45]

False doctrine run very far away from it. Sickening when general authorities twist scripture change it’s meaning and mingle their philosophies with it...

[Robin Hood]

More Woke speech. I remember hearing that Eve was wiser than Adam and that she wasnt fooled at all by Satan, and that Adam "wisely followed" his wife's leadership and wisdom by partaking of the fruit. Nevermind the scriptures quote Eve stating that she was indeed "beguiled". The first step to reimagining a society is to re-write history so it conforms to the values and beliefs of whatever the controlling agenda is.

Not only that, but Eve became Lucifers agent. Not only did she succomb to temptation herself, but she then compounded her sin by obeying Lucifer and carrying out his mission to get Adam to partake. At Lucifers bidding she refused to accept Adam's refusal to partake of the fruit and set about persuading him to change his mind. In other words, she was playing the role of Satan. This is why she was cursed.

[Robin Hood]

More Woke speech. I remember hearing that Eve was wiser than Adam and that she wasnt fooled at all by Satan, and that Adam "wisely followed" his wife's leadership and wisdom by partaking of the fruit. Nevermind the scriptures quote Eve stating that she was indeed "beguiled". The first step to reimagining a society is to re-write history so it conforms to the values and beliefs of whatever the controlling agenda is.

Crazy you brought this up. Because in a Bishop training meeting the night before, he said this very thing. I am paraphrasing. He said that Eve partaking of the fruit was a revelatory action. Meaning she received revelation from God and Adam followed. He then concluded with "she saved us". I am not making this up.

And these people are supposed to be our leaders!

[gkearney]

I was recently at a special fireside for the youth in our stake. I took some of the YM from our congregation. During the presentation the Area Authority had them read Job 38:7. After one of the YW read it, he stated emphatically that the phrase "sons of God shouted for joy" was in fact sexist, and the writers of the bible texts were sometimes sexist. He stated it should read "daughters and sons of God". He mentioned the word sexist three times to the youth (ages 11-18) in regard to this scripture phrasing. This seemed off to me. Especially using the word sexist in this context. Have visiting authorities (seventies) used this language in your special meetings?

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Maybe the scripture is saying the girls sang and the boys shouted. My study of "Morning Stars" or reference of Venus deals with the feminine. Christ and Lucifer are referenced by the Morning Star. However, anciently and symbolically, the Morning Star was ascribed to the feminine/ female.

Who is this area authority seventy? Could we get a name here please?

[Luke]

This is why you have to build your foundation on Christ and Christ alone.

[Rick Grimes]

I've been thinking about this and I've pondered how we let it get to where we are at now. Pres. Packer and other leaders before him have specifically warned us about the dangers of feminism to the church. How do we have earlier leaders warning us of these philosophies of men that are making their way into the church, to getting it taught to us straight from our leaders?

I first heard this version of the fall about 19 years ago when I was serving a mission. A sister missionary, who was one of the most rabid feminists I had ever met gave a teaching to the rest of the district about the fall and she gave this version of events. I just about fell out of my chair. Needless to say, we had a spirited discussion about how the scriptures didnt agree with this at all. She then said something along the lines of a GA having said it at a woman's broadcast or one of the General Relief society Presidency having said it. Either way, it wasnt at all scriptural but something taught over the pulpit. I thought this strange that false doctrine could be taught like this. I put it to the back of my mind though. But over the years and gradually I also started noticing that there was a subtle shift in underlying message being given to the congregation, mo matter which ward I belonged to or was serving in. This subtle message was one about the inferiority of the brothers and how superior the sisters were in virtually everything. Often touted were the comparisons of Visiting teaching numbers vs home teaching results, their natural inclusion inclination to things spiritual, the greater numbers of female in attendance, etc... These are all observable truths, for the most part, at least in my experience. But that's the dangerous part about how we got here. Just like anti-mormon material, Satan will take a truth and bundle it with a lie. He will carefully make the lie easy to accept as full truth and lull us away into carnal security. So here we have, some basic truths about our good sisters being used to advance the cause of feminism, which seeks to minimize men, destroy the structure of the family, "give" women the priesthood, and deny our inherent strengths that compliments our counterpart gender. This isnt even an attack on men alone. It's an attack on women by having them see men as carnal and base creatures, useful only for procreation and bringing home a paycheck.(if they havent divorced him yet, in the which case, a child support check is all this guy is now) Thankfully not all sisters believe this way, but it is very confusing the messages our daughters are recieving with the subtle re-writes of history, and the not so tongue in cheek "jokes" that come from the pulpit. Nevermind the messages they recieve in school and social media about feminism and being more woke.

My point in this is, are we laying blame on the right people? Is it really our leaders who are to blame or is it us? I mean, we were prophetically warned before all of this by our ordained leaders. Did we heed the warning? Did we make it known to our leaders that this is not what we wanted taught? Or were there members who subtly used their influence to mingle their philosophies into the church curriculum? People with influence like Sis. Dew and other progressives out there? Maybe not us here in this forum, but some of the more vocal activists out there that wrote letters to SLC and were able to influence our leaders with these teachings? This was the thought I had as I pondered this question. How much are WE, collectively speaking, responsible for this reality we find ourselves in?

[Trucker]

Maybe not us here in this forum, but some of the more vocal activists out there that wrote letters to SLC and were able to influence our leaders with these teachings? This was the thought I had as I pondered this question. How much are WE, collectively speaking, responsible for this reality we find ourselves in?

You cannot lobby church leaders and remain in good standing. You may sit and count the cost and still decide to do it, but there is no bottom-up influence in the church. And the leaders will not change from any action of church members unless the press or police get involved.

But now it cuts both ways: since members have no say in how the church is run, or what the doctrines or policies are, the members have no responsibility for them. Meaning, since the leaders can control and set everything, then the members have no collective responsibility and can't be held responsible except for in their individual lives.

So the leaders can't have all decision-making power, and yet blame the members for those decisions.

And a sort of "the members made us do it" excuse wouldn't fly either, because the members can't make the GA's give a particular message or teach a particular doctrine. That's on them.

There are plenty of examples of leaders shaming members for not doing something, only to shame them some years later for doing something, claiming they never taught it. Caffeinated sodas in vending machine at BYU is an easy example. As if the members dreamt up caffeine cola restrictions and imposed that on church leadership, but that's exactly what they claimed.

It's a sign of abusive leadership, actually.

[Rick Grimes]

Maybe not us here in this forum, but some of the more vocal activists out there that wrote letters to SLC and were able to influence our leaders with these teachings? This was the thought I had as I pondered this question. How much are WE, collectively speaking, responsible for this reality we find ourselves in?

You cannot lobby church leaders and remain in good standing. You may sit and count the cost and still decide to do it, but there is no bottom-up influence in the church. And the leaders will not change from any action of church members unless the press or police get involved.

But now it cuts both ways: since members have no say in how the church is run, or what the doctrines or policies are, the members have no responsibility for them. Meaning, since the leaders can control and set everything, then the members have no collective responsibility and can't be held responsible except for in their individual lives.

So the leaders can't have all decision-making power, and yet blame the members for those decisions.

And a sort of "the members made us do it" excuse wouldn't fly either, because the members can't make the GA's give a particular message or teach a particular doctrine. That's on them.

There are plenty of examples of leaders shaming members for not doing something, only to shame them some years later for doing something, claiming they never taught it. Caffeinated sodas in vending machine at BYU is an easy example. As if the members dreamt up caffeine cola restrictions and imposed that on church leadership, but that's exactly what they claimed.

It's a sign of abusive leadership, actually.

I'm not sure it's that accurate to state, "you cannot lobby the church leaders". Just a few years ago, we had the "Let them pray" movement that got women to pray in General conference sessions. (Not that I'm against women praying, I actually never even noticed it before) We also have the church bending over backwards to accommodate homosexuals in their own law lobbying activities there in Utah and teaching that people are "born this way". This is a big retreat from Prop. 8 just a little over 10 years ago. This is due to members "lobbying" for these changes and we see the leadership respond in kind.
How active have we been in opposition to these "worldly" changes? Have we written to SLC to urge them to stand true with the established word of God and not get in bed with Babylon.

[Trucker]

Maybe not us here in this forum, but some of the more vocal activists out there that wrote letters to SLC and were able to influence our leaders with these teachings? This was the thought I had as I pondered this question. How much are WE, collectively speaking, responsible for this reality we find ourselves in?

You cannot lobby church leaders and remain in good standing. You may sit and count the cost and still decide to do it, but there is no bottom-up influence in the church. And the leaders will not change from any action of church members unless the press or police get involved.

But now it cuts both ways: since members have no say in how the church is run, or what the doctrines or policies are, the members have no responsibility for them. Meaning, since the leaders can control and set everything, then the members have no collective responsibility and can't be held responsible except for in their individual lives.

So the leaders can't have all decision-making power, and yet blame the members for those decisions.

And a sort of "the members made us do it" excuse wouldn't fly either, because the members can't make the GA's give a particular message or teach a particular doctrine. That's on them.

There are plenty of examples of leaders shaming members for not doing something, only to shame them some years later for doing something, claiming they never taught it. Caffeinated sodas in vending machine at BYU is an easy example. As if the members dreamt up caffeine cola restrictions and imposed that on church leadership, but that's exactly what they claimed.

It's a sign of abusive leadership, actually.

I'm not sure it's that accurate to state, "you cannot lobby the church leaders". Just a few years ago, we had the "Let them pray" movement that got women to pray in General conference sessions. (Not that I'm against women praying, I actually never even noticed it before) We also have the church bending over backwards to accommodate homosexuals in their own law lobbying activities there in Utah and teaching that people are "born this way". This is a big retreat from Prop. 8 just a little over 10 years ago. This is due to members "lobbying" for these changes and we see the leadership respond in kind.
How active have we been in opposition to these "worldly" changes? Have we written to SLC to urge them to stand true with the established word of God and not get in bed with Babylon.

Except the church spokesman at the time said the decision to have women speak predated the letter drive:

"The drive reportedly generated about 1,600 letters from 300 participants, but a church spokesman said prayer assignments predated the "Let Women Pray" campaign."
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php? ... type=CMSID

If the letter drive was the impetus for the change, the church has not admitted it.

[Rick Grimes]

PR spin. The church can't admit it. It would look bad. What a coincidence that this campaign starts right on the heels of them making this change. I dont buy it. Furthermore, why the big changes to the LGBT outreach? We used to lobby for laws that protected heterosexual practices like marriage and adoption. Now, the church is lobbying (and helping to pass) laws that favor LGBT people in the state of Utah. Was this also inspired changes, or was it in response to pressure from activist Mormons? (Yeah, I said it, Mormons. Its who we are.)

[Trucker]

I definitely believe the church changes because of social pressure, but not from members lobbying. At least not staying in good standing. Like with Sam Young protesting interviewing young children behind closed doors. The church excommunicates him, but essentially adopts what he lobbied for. But then again, the press was involved.

If you want to cause change int he church, expect to lose your standing, but if there is enough press about the issue, the church will change. That's how it has always worked.

[Lizzy60]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

[Rick Grimes]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

I would imagine it would have. Now all we need is a version with Heavenly Mother commanding Heavenly Father to start this creation and to put Jesus Christ and Michael to start making it. Then Heavenly Father will come back and report to her the progress made.

[mahalanobis]

Feminists love to appear to praise and acknowledge "strong women" and "brave women". But the truth of the matter is that they only cheer and applaud if you're supporting and toeing their line. If a local suburb mom pushes back against a school curriculum all by herself without the help of neighbors and church, then ultimately takes her kids out of school and homeschools them... Then she's not a strong woman. She's a high-strung local crazy. Or a radical.

So they don't actually appreciate strong women uniformly. They just use that word as branding for their approving of their activism.

I actually had a good discussion with my wife about this and she totally understands this concept and absolutely agrees about the double standards and manipulation.

[David13]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

I would imagine it would have. Now all we need is a version with Heavenly Mother commanding Heavenly Father to start this creation and to put Jesus Christ and Michael to start making it. Then Heavenly Father will come back and report to her the progress made.

And when given further instruction, Heavenly Father will respond "Yes, Dear!", 5 times in the ceremony.
dc

[Robin Hood]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

Are we not conflating this with the 1990 changes?
Those changes were certainly in response to a survey, but I was unaware that the church specifically surveyed people this time.

[Sarah]

Maybe not us here in this forum, but some of the more vocal activists out there that wrote letters to SLC and were able to influence our leaders with these teachings? This was the thought I had as I pondered this question. How much are WE, collectively speaking, responsible for this reality we find ourselves in?

You cannot lobby church leaders and remain in good standing. You may sit and count the cost and still decide to do it, but there is no bottom-up influence in the church. And the leaders will not change from any action of church members unless the press or police get involved.

But now it cuts both ways: since members have no say in how the church is run, or what the doctrines or policies are, the members have no responsibility for them. Meaning, since the leaders can control and set everything, then the members have no collective responsibility and can't be held responsible except for in their individual lives.

So the leaders can't have all decision-making power, and yet blame the members for those decisions.

And a sort of "the members made us do it" excuse wouldn't fly either, because the members can't make the GA's give a particular message or teach a particular doctrine. That's on them.

There are plenty of examples of leaders shaming members for not doing something, only to shame them some years later for doing something, claiming they never taught it. Caffeinated sodas in vending machine at BYU is an easy example. As if the members dreamt up caffeine cola restrictions and imposed that on church leadership, but that's exactly what they claimed.

It's a sign of abusive leadership, actually.

Now you know what it feels like to be a woman. Women have had to deal with this throughout all of history - feeling like they have no control and no voice. That the men make all the decisions for them. If you want women to keep their traditional role, then you certainly can accept the traditional role of members having Presiding authorities rule over you and make decisions that affect you. But I wouldn't complain too much. These are such minor decisions compared with what a wife must submit to with a husband who wants the final say.

[Sarah]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

Maybe our leaders are making efforts to have "common consent." Maybe some of the things that bother women have been prayed about, and like with Africans, the curse is beginning to be lifted because of revelation.

[Lizzy60]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

Are we not conflating this with the 1990 changes?
Those changes were certainly in response to a survey, but I was unaware that the church specifically surveyed people this time.

I'm just passing on what they said on their blog. Some of the women claimed that they had received a survey from the Church. They stated that women who had temple recommends and lived close to a temple, but hadn't attended in over a year were the ones who received the survey. I don't have documentation, I'm just passing on the information they claimed to know. Since they were talking to the feminist choir, so to speak, I didn't see any reason they would make up their story, although there still may have been conjecture on their part. The fact that they filled out a survey on the temple was claimed by more than a few members on the post.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/ ... -possible/

[Rick Grimes]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

Maybe our leaders are making efforts to have "common consent." Maybe some of the things that bother women have been prayed about, and like with Africans, the curse is beginning to be lifted because of revelation.

What "curse" are you referring to? I'm curious.

[Sarah]

Mormon feminists on liberal-leaning LDS blogs said they received surveys from the Church asking what things about the temple ceremonies bothered them. They claim that most of their peeves were eliminated in the Jan 2019 temple redo.

Maybe our leaders are making efforts to have "common consent." Maybe some of the things that bother women have been prayed about, and like with Africans, the curse is beginning to be lifted because of revelation.

What "curse" are you referring to? I'm curious.

22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.