Temple clothing change?

[johnBob]

Actually what is more likely to happen with women ruling a nation is that the society which has women ruling will naturally be overrun by a more masculine aggressive society . . . unless you plan on killing off all the men or by putting women in charge you'll naturally kill off your entire society because you won't reproduce.

Hmm . . .what is happening today?-ever noticed which societies are actually reproducing themselves? As much as women hate Muslims and their hypermasculinity and the African cultures they are the only cultures that are actually reproducing themselves.

Feminine cultures just simply die-they are either overrun by a more aggressive masculine society or they voluntarily kill themselves off by not reproducing.

[abijah`]

Interesting!

It is worded as a person speaking yet called “wisdom”. Do you happen to have any other passages you believe speak of Mother?

well, not entirely sure its related, but i was discussing john's application of the term "wisdom" in another thread in a way that i think is related to its usage by solomon in proverbs.

Revelation 13:18

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

John is drawing from the old testament, and not from a seraph's wings. "This calls for wisdom". Who do we know that's wise?

1 Kings 10:14

Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold

It has to do with dominion through trade - and its specifically after his run-in with the queen of the south, but that's quite a tangent to go down here.

The number itself is not bad, after all its the number of "a man" ('adam) which the beast hijacks and usurps.

Which brings me to the chapter I seem to quote all the time and no one can or has the interest to explain, about back when Lucifer ruled as priest-king in the garden:

Ezekiel 28

“You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.

You were the anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.

You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.

In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.

By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought fire out from your midst; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you.

Adam was not the original Aaron-figure of the temple-garden. The ubiquitous theme in the scriptures of reversal of primogeniture and sovereignty go all the way back to the primordial Eden.

And there are reasons why Satan asks Peter James & John if they "have any money", whilst expressing to Adam that he can buy anything in this world with money.

The great deception of the 666 Beast system is that on the surface it appears to have everything needed for a functional, good creation - everything having to do with those first six days.

The fatal lacking however is in the seventh day, God's sanctified day of rest - "there is no rest for the wicked".

so it seems, somehow, wisdom as harnessed by the devil is fruitful in $$$

going back to ezekiel 28 and the scene described there with the tyrant-cherub desecrating eden with corrupt trade.... sounds awful familiar init?

john 2

And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

you have comparable scriptures also connected to wisdom, who embodies the divine feminine, in proverbs -

proverbs 3

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.
16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.
17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.
19 The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

again, this talk of wisdom, of merchandise, etc. anyone know what their "tokens" actually are, or what "selling" them actually entails?

proverbs 8

18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.
19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.
20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:
21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures

this earth and these heavens will be replaced by new ones. lay up treasures and riches and substance for the one to come. and certainly do not sell your tokens to partake of the tree of life to become great in this world.

which subject naturally brushes against the davidic servant subject -

psalm 110

Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours

"womb of the morning". sounds like divine-feminine to me. sounds kind of like "son of the morning". hmmmmm..

psalm 45

at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
Hear, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear: forget your people and your father’s house,
and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your lord, bow to him.
The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift; men of wealth will seek your favor
All glorious is the princess in her chamber, with robes interwoven with gold.
In many-colored robes she is led to the king

[MMbelieve]

Yes, the way the world works is extremely messed up.
I beg to differ on the idea that it’s because women can vote. I mean blacks can vote too and people used to be against that as well...Hispanics? People under 30, single men, jobless men, immigrants, illegals. Non-religious people, people who frankly hate America and don’t respect the laws and constitution.

Maybe we should have a voting test people have to pass to have the right to vote. They have one that immigrants have to pass to become a citizen. How many Americans can pass that test? So one to vote sounds good to me. Have it marked on your drivers license like they do for donor status.

The truth is, any voter who doesn’t have their mind right and have some respect for the voting system and who advocates for anything against what is good and correct is exactly the same...one vote at a time. Doesn’t matter what age or race or gender they are.

The world is messed up because it’s full of people with many different perceptions and opinions. Everyone thinks they know the best ways. Few do.

You have a good comment. Unfortunately the data does not support that it's NOT because women can vote.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... te-voters/

The worst liberal voters are black women-but if only women voted this country would be a socialists hellhole.

Just curious if a home (woman’s primary role) is considered a socialist set up with of course the governors being mom and dad. I haven’t ever thought about it before.

Actually you hit on a really good point-yes this is actually a key to understanding the way the world works and the differences between men and women. Women by nature are more collectivists than men.

The Russian revolution started because of famine-because the men didn't have food to feed their families and their families needed food. Socialism seemed like a good thing because well women and children get fed instead of starving from a cold winter in the middle of a war with all the food getting sent to go fight a war . . .where all the men were!

All the men (okay many or much of them) were fighting the war, instead of being back home providing for their families. So what happened with no men to provide? People (women, children and the disabled men who couldn't fight!) revolted and wanted the state to provide-socialism.

This is not a bad thing you mention. How can it be bad if all are in agreement to provide and help? Law of consecration could be more accurate to what righteous women will be very akin to promoting and living well.

[johnBob]

You have a good comment. Unfortunately the data does not support that it's NOT because women can vote.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... te-voters/

The worst liberal voters are black women-but if only women voted this country would be a socialists hellhole.

There is a place for both the masculine and feminine.
Feminine is love and compassion and acceptance and peace.

If women ruled the world, we wouldn’t have wars. We would get together and find ways to make it work out for both parties.

Please don’t start pushing the agenda that all women are bad....you know how it feels when you believe someone is saying all men are bad.

No you aren't understanding what I'm explaining. It's not that women are bad-I don't believe that at all-it's that due to the feminine nature, woman will naturally look for protection. If they can't find that protection from men or if they ignore that protection from men, they will go to the next place they can find it-government.

We'd still have wars if women ruled the world-you don't think women influenced their husband to go to war? Do you really believe that men like going off to some foreign land to die? I don't think so.

Now it’s women who make men go to war. Are women seriously blamed for EVERYTHING since Eve?

FYI, you will never convince an intelligent and sane woman that she is incapable of voting or make a good decision or having a rational and thoughtful mind to advocate for the good principals men should be advocating for. I don’t know about the women you know but the ones I know are very good women.

Maybe there just needs to be laws for women to vote on that deal with men as their primary protectors? If the only thing to vote for is government to give you free stuff then we need to change what’s available. Please don’t think I’m a fool for posting this statement, there is some truth to the practicality here. If the leaders keep pushing a vote to minorities and disadvantaged people and promising free stuff and such then it’s going to work in a world of laziness and selfishness where most will take free stuff and go on their way. Just like those who Jesus healed, how many even had the mindset to give in return? It’s appealing to human nature, not just women.

If men are not providing by leaving their women and children or getting locked up in prison then preventing women from having protection by removing their voice is doing what to fix the problem of men who refuse to be responsible men?

Nothing!

No I never said women MAKE men go to war-I only said women INFLUENCE men to go to war.

Look just think about it for a second. You have two tribes on an island. You have limited resources. In one tribe, you have men who beat their wives, in another tribe you have men who don't beat their wives. If you live in the tribe where the men don't beat you-you'd want your men to go over to the other tribe and kick the other tribe off the island so there is no chance the other tribe could overrun you and then you get beaten.

War is about preservation of societies and culture or taking over of society and culture. If you make the claim that women would never start wars, then you make the claim women would never do anything to preserve their society or culture from an outside threat.

Hmm . . .maybe you are right considering all the ways we are voluntarily without war giving up our heritage and culture (refugees? illegal immigrants?).

Which if you are correct that women would never start a war, nor would ever preserve their culture or society-then you are essentially making the argument that you MUST have a Patriarchy-because it's the only thing that will actually preserve whatever culture or society it is you wish to live in.

[johnBob]

You have a good comment. Unfortunately the data does not support that it's NOT because women can vote.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... te-voters/

The worst liberal voters are black women-but if only women voted this country would be a socialists hellhole.

Just curious if a home (woman’s primary role) is considered a socialist set up with of course the governors being mom and dad. I haven’t ever thought about it before.

Actually you hit on a really good point-yes this is actually a key to understanding the way the world works and the differences between men and women. Women by nature are more collectivists than men.

The Russian revolution started because of famine-because the men didn't have food to feed their families and their families needed food. Socialism seemed like a good thing because well women and children get fed instead of starving from a cold winter in the middle of a war with all the food getting sent to go fight a war . . .where all the men were!

All the men (okay many or much of them) were fighting the war, instead of being back home providing for their families. So what happened with no men to provide? People (women, children and the disabled men who couldn't fight!) revolted and wanted the state to provide-socialism.

This is not a bad thing you mention. How can it be bad if all are in agreement to provide and help? Law of consecration could be more accurate to what righteous women will be very akin to promoting and living well.

Law of consecration is a fairytale-it will only work when a culture has no contact from an outside culture/threat/force or when everyone has the same culture.

[Rick Grimes]

I agree that it is absolutely about seeking security and protection that drives a woman. It's how they are made. If they dont have a husband to provide for them, they want the government to provide for them, which means higher taxes and more benefits for them. Unfortunately, if that were all it wouldnt be so bad. Instead, they get in bed with the pink mafia, feminists who demand equal pay for unequal work, illegal protections, anti gun laws,etc.... That is what is so dangerous about them having the vote. Black women especially would liberal because they are seldom married. 8 out 10 black kids is born out of wedlock.

This attack on men is brilliant by Satan, as he is replacing husbands and fathers in the home, with big government that brings with it all matter of other sinful practices that they have to embrace as well.

[johnBob]

This attack on men is brilliant by Satan, as he is replacing husbands and fathers in the home, with big government that brings with it all matter of other sinful practices that they have to embrace as well.

And getting us ready for a ripe takeover by Islam . . .which sadly enough if Christianity can't produce a culture worthy of preserving itself from outside threats then it obviously means it's not true (or at least whatever current version of Christianity we currently have).

Things that are true survive, things that are false die.

It's why we don't have Greek Gods anymore or Roman Gods anymore-they were clearly false gods because they couldn't reproduce themselves over thousands of years.

There is great truth in Christianity, Islam, Buddist, etc. because those religions have the staying power to reproduce and replicate themselves over thousands and thousands of years.

Sadly, Western Christianity is dying, so there is something about the version of Western Christianity that is utterly false-because it can't reproduce and protect itself.

But that is where I'm really hopeful-out of the ashes of Western Christianity is going to arise a new Christianity a rebirth that is going to utterly overthrow all the other false religions.

[Sarah]

Women have the disadvantage in this life that we are weaker in body and in our ability to produce children. It is part of Eve's punishment,

Is that really a disadvantage? Producing and nurturing children a disadvantage and punishment? Our heavenly parents have a lot of titles, king and queens, Priest and priestesses and many others. Nevertheless, we call them Mother and Father. It could also be said "men have the disadvantage in this life, that we are stronger in body and in our ability to labor and protect our families, communities and nations, even unto death"; it is part of Adams punishment. Is being a mother a punishment? Is being a provider/ protector a punishment?

I'll be honest, these sentiments seem to echo feminist claptraps.

Men seem to have the disadvantage of being more prone to certain sins, and of having to work hard to eat, but women must work hard too if they don't have any help. Women have the disadvantage of being at the mercy of the strong, just like poor, weak men are at the mercy of other stronger men. So when the curse on the earth is lifted, and men no longer have to work so hard to feed themselves and their families, they will no longer be at the mercy of stronger men who would take advantage of them. I'm all for that.

Woman have the disadvantage of not being physically able to work as hard to feed herself or her children, so a lot of men take advantage of this and force their women to do certain things they wouldn't do unless they were desperate to eat and stay alive. So the question is, should a woman be forced to have children and sex with a man in order to eat, or should she have the freedom to say no to that and try to work or find a different man? Women also have the disadvantage of becoming bound to a child and helpless if a sexual encounter happens, where a man can walk away without any consequence, so she is disadvantaged when it comes to sex and the consequences. So I agree that having children is a blessing, but everything can be a blessing or a curse depending on the circumstance.

[johnBob]

Women have the disadvantage in this life that we are weaker in body and in our ability to produce children. It is part of Eve's punishment,

Is that really a disadvantage? Producing and nurturing children a disadvantage and punishment? Our heavenly parents have a lot of titles, king and queens, Priest and priestesses and many others. Nevertheless, we call them Mother and Father. It could also be said "men have the disadvantage in this life, that we are stronger in body and in our ability to labor and protect our families, communities and nations, even unto death"; it is part of Adams punishment. Is being a mother a punishment? Is being a provider/ protector a punishment?

I'll be honest, these sentiments seem to echo feminist claptraps.

So when the curse on the earth is lifted, and men no longer have to work so hard to feed themselves and their families, they will no longer be at the mercy of stronger men who would take advantage of them.

And that is where you are wrong; this is fantasy land thinking. All men are subject to stronger or more competent men. It is this way because no man is equal to another-we are all different with different skills and as such with a hierarchy of competence.

The only time this is ever going to be remotely possible is during the Millennium and as no one knows when this is going to be or even what it really looks like-I'd rather deal in the reality of the current world rather than dream of a pie-in-the-sky fantasy which may or may not be in my lifetime (but God willing it is).

[Sarah]

I'm not trying to solve the world's problems, but I don't put my head in the sand and pretend like they don't exist.

Clearly there are plenty of evil, wicked people in this world. Women who kill their own children, men who abuse their wives, women who abuse their husbands, men who sell their children.

But what you are attempting to do is completely illogical. You are trying to say that because a particular culture (mostly Muslim) and African are uncivilized that it means that the Western Culture was uncivilized and it's only because of 'feminism" that women in the West today aren't beaten, raped, pillaged by men. You are trying to map what is going on in the uncivilized world and retroactively apply it to the 1000s of years of history of the civilized world. That is illogical.

No, it's not feminism. It's JudeoChristian beliefs that prevent it. On a large scale, Jewish and Christian cultures do not do what Muslim and African cultures do. It's not feminism which prevents women in the West from living this livestyle-it's Christianity or Judism.

You have created a religion out of nothing-feminism becomes your god. The only reason feminism even exists in the West today is specifically because of Christianity and Judism.

There is nothing in Scripture either the Jewish or Christian which allows in any way the sale of children for sex of sex slaves-if you read that in the text you are extrapolating from nothing. In fact, many sections warn against such perverse practices.

You are constantly putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say that women aren't treated poorly here in the West because of feminism. I realize that it is the light of the gospel that has more to do with it how our citizens overall are treated more fairly and not forced to do things they don't want to do, like the rest of the world. I agree with you there. And that light has shown us all that agency and dignity and love and respect are important. Look in the latest Ensign. Even our ladies that practiced polygamy were all about woman's suffrage. Perhaps that light of the gospel inspired men and women to realize that everyone should have basic rights protected, and that one group of people should not be silenced. Please tell me what rights you think women should have.

Well technically the woman's suffrage and polygamy is more complicated that that! Utah was becoming a state-or just was a state while at the same time trying to protect polygamy. I think it was more a ploy from leadership in a compromise with the rest of the country-they were trying to show the US they were barbarians because see "we let the women vote!". It didn't work.

What rights should women have? Well tell me a right and I'll tell you if I think they should have it. First though we should get something clear. We think of rights as things that are free-I don't see it that way. With a right comes an obligation and a responsibility.

For example, with the right to vote comes the obligation that if your country votes to go to war-you have a responsibility to go fight that war. Voting to send other people off to die when you are except from fighting is pretty cowardly.

Do I think women should fight in wars-no I do not.
Do I think women should have abortions-no I do not.
Do I think women should be provided government free hand-outs on welfare-no I do not. Churches did that before they can do it again.
Do I think women should have the right to vote? I used to and would look down on anyone who said otherwise. I'm not so sure anymore. When you parse out any votes in the Western world, US, Europe it doesn't matter, there is a huge divide between men and women. More specifically it is dramatically divided between specifically SINGLE women on one side and men + men who are married + women who are married on the other.

The entire welfare system, the abortion system all of that would have NEVER been voted into existence had only men voted. Single women vote to use the state or the government as their husband. Single women vote to extract resources from single men and men with families to give to the government who then gives them (single women) said resources.

So should women have the right to vote? I think over time it will be made manifest whether that is a good idea or a horrifically bad idea-so far it's leaning in the bad idea category.

I think what would solve this problem is if voting was restricted to those who paid taxes, I mean actually paid them not filled a W2. Then the tendency for single women to use the state as their husband might be kept in check.

Does a woman have a right to food and shelter?

The problem with not allowing women to vote is that unless you give women the exact same rights as children, there is nothing stopping men from taking advantage of women and passing laws restricting their freedoms, just like you had with slavery. If women aren't allowed to vote, you are then acknowledging that they don't have the right to work and pay taxes, and therefore they should have the exact same rights as children. Children have the right to food and shelter and to be cared for, so you would have to have a government safety net to meet these rights of single mothers if you could not track down the father to make him provide, and/or you would need to require every man to marry, or to give of their substance to the widows and single women. Fathers would also be required to care for their daughters indefinitely. This is the system in heathen nations. Women are children. And women have it a lot worse usually than children because more men are usually more interested in having sex with women than they are with children, so you see men who are supposed to enforce law not enforcing or protecting the rights of women and children because they themselves are taking advantage of them. The complaints of rape and abuse are ignored. This is how most of the world works, and it is very sad for the women and children - the weak. No government protects them.

[Sarah]

Hello! I don't put my head in the sand. I realize that women kill their own babies, and if you would have denied it like you denied fathers being awful to their daughters, than I would have corrected you.

No, you are bent on making the case that men are horrible, despicable creatures.

Sorry, but that is not my goal at all. My goal is to help men and women be happy, and to be happy you have to treat each other with respect and unselfishness. The Lord has declared that the majority of men who receive power and authority will exercise unrighteous dominion. And I realize that as a mother that I exercise unrighteous dominion too often over my children. I am trying to learn from that just like men should learn how to not do so with their wives and children. Children grow up, and they don't need to be commanded by their parents anymore. Parents don't preside and command their children after they grow up. And I think men need to allow their wives to grow up, acknowledge that Eve has paid a hefty price for her disobedience, and should not longer be placed in a position of disadvantage and dutiful obedience to a man who is prone to be unrighteous. I'm not arguing against a man presiding here or in eternity, but if that man equates presiding to "my wife will always obey me and I am under no obligation to obey her" then he needs to wake up to a higher way of thinking and the higher laws our Father wants to give us.

To the bold. But women aren't prone to unrighteousness? If women ruled it'd be sunshine, roses, rainbows and unicorns forever?

DC 121 is simply stating reality-which is that everyone, you, me, men women exercise unrighteous dominion. Only one MAN ever walked this earth who didn't. Funny, Christ is a man, who knows maybe one day feminists will try and make him a woman . . .

I'm glad your goal isn't to make men out to be horrible, despicable creatures-then stop kicking against the pricks to ensure that at every turn you point out how despicable men are.

Every righteous man wants an adult for a wife. Do you know how exhausting it is to have to command someone in every little thing? What mother wants to tell her child every night, brush your teeth, say your prayers-it's exhausting! But with adulthood comes responsibility.

How many wives will have 2-3 kids and the house is a total disaster, they can't manage to have any meals cooked on time, kids don't go to bed on time, they can't bother to show up on time for activities or events, call up their husbands in the middle of the work day to $itch and moan about how they are so exhausted and hate life . . they are the proverbial "hot mess" and then sit there complaining about the "Patriarchy" and about how men are evil horrible beings and if only they ran the world it would be such a great place!

Everyone fawns all over then telling them, oh I'm so sorry for your hard life, yeah those evil men if it weren't for them you'd have a great life-how dare a man tell you what to do, poor you. Yeah, your husband just needs to treat you like the queen and princess you are-he should bring you flowers home and serande you tonight!

It's utterly hilarious-it's like lady, if you want to start telling me about how the world would be a great place if you ran it . . .you absolutely no self-awareness. Why don't you "get yo ##it together" and then we can talk.

Because in my experience in life-the most ardent feminists are the ones who's lives are an utter mess and they are complete basketcase. Because come to find out, once you've got your junk together, you realize it's actually not that bad. Most men aren't the evil scumbag they are made out to be-they just want competence and sadly competence is in short supply these days.

And if you married a man who treats you like a child-the real question to ask is two-fold? Do I act like a child-thereby necessitating being treated like one? And if I don't act like a child, then why would I have ever married a man who would treat me like one?

I choose were I work in life-I don't work for horrible micromanaging bosses. If you married a micromanaging man, why not just own up to the fact that you didn't have enough self-awareness to understand that he was a micromanager before you married him? You choose him, so choose wisely-if you choose poorly you've got nobody to blame but yourself! (of course, that then gets into a discussion of the value of arraigned marriages-but that's another discussion for another day!)

Again, you are accusing me of saying things that I never say. I never said that women were not prone to unrighteousness. I even admitted to it myself with my own children. I never suggested that I wanted women to rule or take over the world. I think you must be mgridle, because you are bringing up the lazy wife as an excuse to tell her what to do. Just so you know, I am not a lazy wife. I do all the laundry, make all the meals, get my children to do chores, do all the housework and errands. My husband goes to work and does outdoor work and manages our finances. So question for you, if a woman has a lazy husband, it is okay for her to tell him to work harder and tell him what to do?

[Sarah]

I dont think women should have the right to vote. My wife doesnt think so either. What have they done with this agency other than use it for perversions? Abortion rights is their dog whistle now. As are gsy rights, illegal immigration, welfare rights, more taxation,etc... Its sad when you see women who are married/complete, tend to vote for conservative Christian principles, but single women vote by and large for godless government institutions and anything that Satan is very happy with.


Yeah. I said it. I dont think they should have the right to vote anymore.

Found this and thought I would share.


“....right to vote, which was granted to women over the age of 30 a century ago in 1918.
But even as late as 1917 - just months before the bill was passed - powerful men in Parliament were trying to stop votes for women”.

10 reasons men gave in 1917 as arguments against women voting.....

1. "Men have the vote and the power at the present moment; I say for Heaven's sake let us keep it.
"We are controlled and worried enough by women at the present time, and I have heard no reason why we should alter the present state of affairs."

2. "There are obvious disadvantages about having women in Parliament. I do not know what is going to be done about their hats.
"How is a poor little man to get on with a couple of women wearing enormous hats in front of him?"

3. "Women are likely to be affected by gusts and waves of sentiment.
"Their emotional temperament makes them so liable to it. But those are not the people best fitted in this practical world either to sit in this House... or to be entrusted with the immense power which this bill gives them."

4. "You have at the present moment certain statistics which show that both the birth and marriage rate are decreasing.
"Can you adopt at this time a policy which might mean an immense destruction of the population of the country which it is essential should not only be retained, but increased."

5. "One of the greatest features in connection with this country is the responsibility of men towards women, and I would view with the greatest apprehension any step which would tend to relieve men of that responsibility."

6. "Women are tremendously accessible, extraordinarily impressionable, noted for the adoption of any new thing, and for the easy acceptance of other people's views.
"Are those qualities which fit women to rule over the home and foreign affairs of a mighty empire?"

7. "Intuition is far more largely developed in women than in men, but instinct and intuition, although good guides, are not the best masters so far as Parliament is concerned.
"Parliament exists for the very purpose of opposing feelings, fancies, and inclinations by reason."

8. "I have read their writings, and in one paper... a moderate publication, I saw that the Prime Minister was violently described as an old fossil.
"What can you say of people who exhibit such a want of judgment, and such a lack of perception of actual facts?"

9. "I daresay that the idealism of the feminine mind and its deadly logic which we have all experienced in private life are qualities superior to those of men, but I do say that in governing a great country and in considering the problems which we have to consider every day in this House such qualities are not valuable, but destructive."

10. "This is a commercial and industrial country. But it could hardly be hoped that women could govern and manage our commerce and industry.
"If we were to have women in this House they would be legislating for these commercial industries of the management of which they know nothing."



Where I found these quotes
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43740033

What we can point out is that many of these reasons they give - that women can't decide things that pertain to man's realm, are the exact reasons we need women representing women's realm. How can we expect men to be able to make decisions regarding women's and children's rights and concerns when they know nothing about those realms. What gives men the ability to decide what's best for women and children?

[MMbelieve]

There is a place for both the masculine and feminine.
Feminine is love and compassion and acceptance and peace.

If women ruled the world, we wouldn’t have wars. We would get together and find ways to make it work out for both parties.

Please don’t start pushing the agenda that all women are bad....you know how it feels when you believe someone is saying all men are bad.

No you aren't understanding what I'm explaining. It's not that women are bad-I don't believe that at all-it's that due to the feminine nature, woman will naturally look for protection. If they can't find that protection from men or if they ignore that protection from men, they will go to the next place they can find it-government.

We'd still have wars if women ruled the world-you don't think women influenced their husband to go to war? Do you really believe that men like going off to some foreign land to die? I don't think so.

Now it’s women who make men go to war. Are women seriously blamed for EVERYTHING since Eve?

FYI, you will never convince an intelligent and sane woman that she is incapable of voting or make a good decision or having a rational and thoughtful mind to advocate for the good principals men should be advocating for. I don’t know about the women you know but the ones I know are very good women.

Maybe there just needs to be laws for women to vote on that deal with men as their primary protectors? If the only thing to vote for is government to give you free stuff then we need to change what’s available. Please don’t think I’m a fool for posting this statement, there is some truth to the practicality here. If the leaders keep pushing a vote to minorities and disadvantaged people and promising free stuff and such then it’s going to work in a world of laziness and selfishness where most will take free stuff and go on their way. Just like those who Jesus healed, how many even had the mindset to give in return? It’s appealing to human nature, not just women.

If men are not providing by leaving their women and children or getting locked up in prison then preventing women from having protection by removing their voice is doing what to fix the problem of men who refuse to be responsible men?

Nothing!

Which if you are correct that women would never start a war, nor would ever preserve their culture or society-then you are essentially making the argument that you MUST have a Patriarchy-because it's the only thing that will actually preserve whatever culture or society it is you wish to live in.

If I am correct that women wouldn’t start wars then who would be impeding on their culture and society? Another woman...who wouldn’t start a war?

I’m not saying women wouldn’t defend themselves, I’m saying they wouldn’t go into solve problems by killing people in other lands.

I’m merely giving a hypothetical based on a righteous woman’s heart and driving forces within.

There is no world that would work as it should without men and women operating together.

[Sarah]

I agree that it is absolutely about seeking security and protection that drives a woman. It's how they are made. If they dont have a husband to provide for them, they want the government to provide for them, which means higher taxes and more benefits for them. Unfortunately, if that were all it wouldnt be so bad. Instead, they get in bed with the pink mafia, feminists who demand equal pay for unequal work, illegal protections, anti gun laws,etc.... That is what is so dangerous about them having the vote. Black women especially would liberal because they are seldom married. 8 out 10 black kids is born out of wedlock.

This attack on men is brilliant by Satan, as he is replacing husbands and fathers in the home, with big government that brings with it all matter of other sinful practices that they have to embrace as well.

The government is not forcing men to avoid marriage or providing for a family. Men are choosing to walk away on their own accord, because it is easy to get sex outside of marriage. It doesn't require commitment to a woman or to becoming a dedicated father. Satan's war on men is through their carnal weaknesses and getting them to care about other things besides being a good husband and father.

[skylight]

SYMBOLISM OF CAP INSERT - WHAT IT MEANS

The cap is circular when viewed from above, like the pupil of an eye. It is similar in symbolism to the Egyptian hypocephalus, which was a circular disk placed under the head (hypo = under, kephelae = head) of the mummy. It represented the Eye of Horus on earth which looked upward into the eye of eternity (source, search for "pupil"). It represents seeing eye to eye with God, having an eye single to his glory. It is the conduit through which light and life flow from heaven into the soul. For all the same reasons, it shares the same symbolism with a seer stone(s). Also, regarding the connection between the cap, seerstone, hypocephalus connection: The caps worn by the priests in their temple service served as a cushion for a crown, and stood in place for the crown itself. (Hugh Nibley, Don E. Norton, Temple and Cosmos, Deseret Book, Pg. 55)

[skylight]

CAP INSERT SYMBOLISM TIES INTO ABRAHAM FACSIMILE:

Facsimile #2 is a drawing of a hypocephalus. Figure 3 depicts God sitting enthroned on his ark, and around/on his head is a circular "crown of eternal light".

The function of the seerstone and hypocephalus were similar, to transmit light from God to the head of the initiate. The cap symbolizes this transmission, and represents the "crown of eternal light" that shines out of those who are chosen, called up through the veil, and anointed Kings and Priests unto God.

[Aprhys]

Wow! I am sure glad I have been taking my vitamins for these ground-breaking changes.

[Voyager]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

[johnBob]

No you aren't understanding what I'm explaining. It's not that women are bad-I don't believe that at all-it's that due to the feminine nature, woman will naturally look for protection. If they can't find that protection from men or if they ignore that protection from men, they will go to the next place they can find it-government.

We'd still have wars if women ruled the world-you don't think women influenced their husband to go to war? Do you really believe that men like going off to some foreign land to die? I don't think so.

Now it’s women who make men go to war. Are women seriously blamed for EVERYTHING since Eve?

FYI, you will never convince an intelligent and sane woman that she is incapable of voting or make a good decision or having a rational and thoughtful mind to advocate for the good principals men should be advocating for. I don’t know about the women you know but the ones I know are very good women.

Maybe there just needs to be laws for women to vote on that deal with men as their primary protectors? If the only thing to vote for is government to give you free stuff then we need to change what’s available. Please don’t think I’m a fool for posting this statement, there is some truth to the practicality here. If the leaders keep pushing a vote to minorities and disadvantaged people and promising free stuff and such then it’s going to work in a world of laziness and selfishness where most will take free stuff and go on their way. Just like those who Jesus healed, how many even had the mindset to give in return? It’s appealing to human nature, not just women.

If men are not providing by leaving their women and children or getting locked up in prison then preventing women from having protection by removing their voice is doing what to fix the problem of men who refuse to be responsible men?

Nothing!

Which if you are correct that women would never start a war, nor would ever preserve their culture or society-then you are essentially making the argument that you MUST have a Patriarchy-because it's the only thing that will actually preserve whatever culture or society it is you wish to live in.

If I am correct that women wouldn’t start wars then who would be impeding on their culture and society? Another woman...who wouldn’t start a war?

I’m not saying women wouldn’t defend themselves, I’m saying they wouldn’t go into solve problems by killing people in other lands.

I’m merely giving a hypothetical based on a righteous woman’s heart and driving forces within.

There is no world that would work as it should without men and women operating together.

If you aren't willing to physically get aggressive aka wars then you aren't willing to defend yourself.

You just simply don't understand how the world works.

Every single law ever created and ever will be created is backed up by aggression. What you are saying is illogical nonsense.

You want a law that car seat manufacturers build safe seats- that's backed up by violence. If the manufacture don't comply you sue him, of he doesn't pay you put him in jail if he doesn't go to jail you kill him.

Don't kid yourself in thinking women don't use violence to get what they want... They do they just want to make sure it's not THEIR hands that get bloody but someone else's hands.

What you are advocating for is a society with no rules no laws. You are advocating to return to the jungle.

[pho·to·syn·the·sis]

Now it’s women who make men go to war. Are women seriously blamed for EVERYTHING since Eve?

FYI, you will never convince an intelligent and sane woman that she is incapable of voting or make a good decision or having a rational and thoughtful mind to advocate for the good principals men should be advocating for. I don’t know about the women you know but the ones I know are very good women.

Maybe there just needs to be laws for women to vote on that deal with men as their primary protectors? If the only thing to vote for is government to give you free stuff then we need to change what’s available. Please don’t think I’m a fool for posting this statement, there is some truth to the practicality here. If the leaders keep pushing a vote to minorities and disadvantaged people and promising free stuff and such then it’s going to work in a world of laziness and selfishness where most will take free stuff and go on their way. Just like those who Jesus healed, how many even had the mindset to give in return? It’s appealing to human nature, not just women.

If men are not providing by leaving their women and children or getting locked up in prison then preventing women from having protection by removing their voice is doing what to fix the problem of men who refuse to be responsible men?

Nothing!

Which if you are correct that women would never start a war, nor would ever preserve their culture or society-then you are essentially making the argument that you MUST have a Patriarchy-because it's the only thing that will actually preserve whatever culture or society it is you wish to live in.

If I am correct that women wouldn’t start wars then who would be impeding on their culture and society? Another woman...who wouldn’t start a war?

I’m not saying women wouldn’t defend themselves, I’m saying they wouldn’t go into solve problems by killing people in other lands.

I’m merely giving a hypothetical based on a righteous woman’s heart and driving forces within.

There is no world that would work as it should without men and women operating together.

If you aren't willing to physically get aggressive aka wars then you aren't willing to defend yourself.

You just simply don't understand how the world works.

Every single law ever created and ever will be created is backed up by aggression. What you are saying is illogical nonsense.

You want a law that car seat manufacturers build safe seats- that's backed up by violence. If the manufacture don't comply you sue him, of he doesn't pay you put him in jail if he doesn't go to jail you kill him.

Don't kid yourself in thinking women don't use violence to get what they want... They do they just want to make sure it's not THEIR hands that get bloody but someone else's hands.

What you are advocating for is a society with no rules no laws. You are advocating to return to the jungle.

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

[MMbelieve]

Now it’s women who make men go to war. Are women seriously blamed for EVERYTHING since Eve?

FYI, you will never convince an intelligent and sane woman that she is incapable of voting or make a good decision or having a rational and thoughtful mind to advocate for the good principals men should be advocating for. I don’t know about the women you know but the ones I know are very good women.

Maybe there just needs to be laws for women to vote on that deal with men as their primary protectors? If the only thing to vote for is government to give you free stuff then we need to change what’s available. Please don’t think I’m a fool for posting this statement, there is some truth to the practicality here. If the leaders keep pushing a vote to minorities and disadvantaged people and promising free stuff and such then it’s going to work in a world of laziness and selfishness where most will take free stuff and go on their way. Just like those who Jesus healed, how many even had the mindset to give in return? It’s appealing to human nature, not just women.

If men are not providing by leaving their women and children or getting locked up in prison then preventing women from having protection by removing their voice is doing what to fix the problem of men who refuse to be responsible men?

Nothing!

Which if you are correct that women would never start a war, nor would ever preserve their culture or society-then you are essentially making the argument that you MUST have a Patriarchy-because it's the only thing that will actually preserve whatever culture or society it is you wish to live in.

If I am correct that women wouldn’t start wars then who would be impeding on their culture and society? Another woman...who wouldn’t start a war?

I’m not saying women wouldn’t defend themselves, I’m saying they wouldn’t go into solve problems by killing people in other lands.

I’m merely giving a hypothetical based on a righteous woman’s heart and driving forces within.

There is no world that would work as it should without men and women operating together.

If you aren't willing to physically get aggressive aka wars then you aren't willing to defend yourself.

You just simply don't understand how the world works.

Every single law ever created and ever will be created is backed up by aggression. What you are saying is illogical nonsense.

You want a law that car seat manufacturers build safe seats- that's backed up by violence. If the manufacture don't comply you sue him, of he doesn't pay you put him in jail if he doesn't go to jail you kill him.

Don't kid yourself in thinking women don't use violence to get what they want... They do they just want to make sure it's not THEIR hands that get bloody but someone else's hands.

What you are advocating for is a society with no rules no laws. You are advocating to return to the jungle.

Not really, lol

You know a bunch of weak women I guess.

I know enough of how the world works please stop assuming I’m an idiot because my perspective is from a different angle. And for the record, I did tell you that no world would function well without both genders.

In your violent world, there has to also be caring and love or else we lose humanity.....that sounds more like the jungle to me.

[skylight]

FURTHER SYMBOLISM (WHICH IS NOW REMOVED) COVERED HERE:
http://barerecord.blogspot.com/2020/01/ ... ovals.html

[onandagus]

I remember sitting down with the (large Utah temple) temple president after going through the temple in the late ninties. He explained some of the temple clothing's symbolism to me. He told me the cap represented Christ who was the head of the church and the robe as taught in the endowment represented the priesthood. The 12 ruffles represented the 12 apostles. And the string represented authority/revelation connecting Christ at the head and the 12 leading the priesthood on Earth.
If he was correct then I suppose the church is just updating its temple clothing to reflect the reality of the last hundred or so years

[Alaris]

Revelation 10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire

Apocalypse of Abraham
I rose up and saw him who had grasped me by the right hand and set me upon my feet, and the appearance of his body was like sapphire, and the look of his countenance like crysolite, and the hair of his head like snow, and the turban (kidaris) on his head like the appearance of the rainbow, and the clothing of his garments like purple, and a golden sceptre was in his right hand,

The rainbow cap represents dominion as the rainbow is a symbol of a covenant to all mankind, so is this man a covenant to Israel (ezekiel 47)

The seven colors of the rainbow align to the seven levels of mankind.

The high priests of Israel come from the seraphim. They wear a Golden crown along with their turban.


We basically wear the turban without the crown. Now that the plastic piece is out, we are going to look more like the high priest. This is not a coincidence.

We lack the golden crown because this time and season is those souls just below the seraphim. This order of angel is likely called the ophannum.

The four winged cherubim are the fourth order of mankind or the levites.

The six winged seraphim are the sixth order of mankind and are the high priests who preside over the levites. This is the order of priests to which we are anointed. They are anointed to be kings and their works as high priests point to how this is accomplished and point to the head of their order... The one wearing the rainbow turban.

The fifth order hold the Aaronic Priesthood in their youth to symbolize where they came from and are tasting of the powers of the world to come in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Before the temple endowment change, I spoke of how the robes switching shoulders symbolizes our securing these powers of which we are only tasting.

Level 4, cherubim, levitical priesthood, token 1, law of sacrifice
Level 5, ophannum, levitical in youth Melchizedek to come, token 2, law of the gospel, robes switch shoulders, white turban only
Level 6, seraphim, (High) Priests, Melchizedek, token 3, chastity, white turban and crown
Level 7, archangel, Fullness of the Priesthood, token 4, consecration, rainbow turban and crown

Some bonus reading here for anyone still interested at this point - below is from the Testament of Levi, a portion of which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to the 3rd century BC. In it, seven men wearing white dress Levi in the vestment of the Holy Priesthood:

Testament of Levi Chapter 8
CHAPTER 8

1 And there again I saw a vision even as the former, after we had spent there seventy days.
2 And I saw seven men in white raiment saying unto me: Arise, put on the robe of the priesthood, and the crown of righteousness, and the breastplate of understanding, and the garment of truth, and the plate of faith, and the turban of the head, and the ephod of prophecy.
3 And they severally carried (these things) and put (them) on me, and said unto me: From henceforth become a priest of the Lord, thou and thy seed for ever.
4 And the first anointed me with holy oil, and gave to me the staff of judgement.
5 The second washed me with pure water, and fed me with bread and wine (even) the most holy things, and clad me with a holy and glorious robe.
6 The third clothed me with a linen vestment like an ephod.
7 The fourth put round me a girdle like unto purple.
8 The fifth gave me a branch of rich olive.
9 The sixth placed a crown on my head.
10 The seventh placed on my head a diadem of priesthood, and filled my hands with incense, that I might serve as priest to the Lord God.

Oh wow - I didn't realize that even Testament of Levi underscores these levels of mankind - maybe I did, as I'm tired haha

Chapter 1:
21 And in the highest of all dwelleth the Great Glory, far above all holiness. (level 8)
22 In the heaven next to it are the archangels, who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the sins of ignorance of the righteous; (level 7)
23 Offering to the Lord a sweet smelling savour, a reasonable and a bloodless offering.
24 And in the heaven below this are the angels who bear answers to the angels of the presence of the Lord. (level 6)
25 And in the heaven next to this are thrones and dominions, in which always they offer praise to God.(level 5)

The seraphim are those who have eyes to see and ears to hear while the rest of the world is basically blind and deaf - level 6. In verse 24 this order of angel - just below the archangel - has the answers. 6th chakra = Pineal gland = Eye of Horus = knowledge / understanding

The fifth level (us) aligns to the Law of the Gospel - the throat chakra - voice. Speaking....singing praise.

My what coincidences these are amirite?

Oh and purple / violet - the 7th order of mankind. Above violet = ultraviolet. Anyway, the purple robes of the High Priest of Israel, as well as the crown, represents the anointing of a king who will one day receive his kingdom. The one with the rainbow on his turban - that's the one who is receiving his kingdom.

[Mindfields]

After reading through this thread I truly believe you can put a square peg in a round hole. The mental gymnastics to make it all "fit" to your current beliefs are mind-boggling.