Leaderboard

A rare disagreement with JAG. The patriachal order may not exist to exalt fatherhood, but it most certainly is an overriding aspect of fatherhood—"overriding" in that all other imposed demands of fatherhood, especially including social constructs, must defer to the patriarchal order. The patriarchal order defines eternal fatherhood. I disagree that it would be more accurate to say "patriarchal and matriarchal order". If that were more accurate, that's what the prophets would have taught us. The Family Proclamation makes it clear that men and women have differing defined duties. The man is called to preside—literally, to sit in front of his family (pre- "before" + sedere "to sit"). The husband and father metaphorically sits in front of his family to (1) provide instruction and (2) closely monitor family members with love and care. So what does this mean and what doesn't it mean? It doesn't mean that everyone tiptoes around Dad to make sure they don't set him off; that is rather the opposite of a father's duty. It doesn't mean that Dad bosses everyone around; that may happen occasionally in certain urgent situations, but it is not the normal order of things. It also doesn't mean that Dad has the final say in everything, despite Tevye's earnest insistence. It does mean that the father accepts the responsibility for the home and takes the attitude, "The buck stops here." It means that if there's something amiss, the father addresses it. It means the father always works for his family's benefit and always treats his family members with love, even when sometimes that expression of love is uncomfortable and people might react badly to it. This is the patriarchal order. Now, the patriarchal order puts the onus of protection and responsibility on the father's shoulders, but it also makes requirements of others. Specifically, others are required to sustain the father, to help him, to understand that he is just a man, after all, and his every word will not likely be as if fallen from the lips of Jesus himself. It is (or should be) understood that others in the home try to love and support the father just he tries to love and support them. The wife and mother, especially, as the divine help to the husband and father and as his only true equal in authority in the home (and, btw, in responsibility, for God will surely require of her hand many of the same things he requires of her husband), must sustain and help him, and never seek to undermine his righteous authority or influence. If we truly understood and strived to live according to the divine patriarchal order, we would take many very large steps away from Babylon and toward our heavenly home. In such a state, we might have a real opportunity to bring again Zion, which we will never bring about on any other principle. The world misunderstands the patriarchal order, through ignorance or willful rebellion. The world is hell and always will be. We will never bring again Zion while living by the world's ideals. Sadly, too many even in the Church misunderstand the patriarchal order, with many accepting the benighted and horrific views of feminist theory, while at least some others see it as a self-serving glorification that is their due. The sublime truth rejects both of these wicked ideas. I wish I had more than a tenuous grasp on the subject, but I know enough to recognize and reject the base perversions of the patriarchal order that both extremes cling to. In the society I live in and at this particular moment in time, the feminist viewpoint seems to dominate the scene, and so it is the one I object to much more strongly. I expect there are other places in the world where the feminist hatred of patriarchy is unknown or at least uncommon, and the other extreme holds sway. In such a situation, I assume I would object more strongly to that other extreme, where patriarchal authority and duty are perverted into an excuse for self-glorification.

My recollection of the training was that those in the bishopric (bishop and counselors only) are to call the Church's abuse hotline. The hotline connects bishopric with social workers and lawyers who consult on the legal issues specific to the jurisdiction of the local ward. The lawyers will discuss whether the bishopric has clergy-penitent privilege and ask if the bishopric can or wants to waive it in this case. It is the clergy-penitent privilege that is at the heart of the difference. The only leaders who have that privilege are the bishop and his counselors. My understanding is that it isn't so much that a Catholic priest can't report a crime that is confessed to him, but that he doesn't have to. Depending on local law, of course. And there could be legal implications of waiving that privilege.

It was "brown face" and "black face" and unfortunately Trudeau is our Prime Minister. 😊 M.

Ok. As I understand it, professional historians (and the Bible itself) tell us that Zedekiah reigned for about eleven years, beginning right after the Babylonians’ first sack of Jerusalem and ending with the second one. If the Lehites leave during Zedekiah’s first year, then by necessity the first fall of Jerusalem would already have happened (else Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin, not Zedekiah, would have been on the throne) and the next fall of Jerusalem would still be at least ten years off. The alternative would be that Lehi actually spent about ten years preaching in Jerusalem (all of which would be covered by 1 Ne 1)—but I’ve never seen anyone in LDS circles make that suggestion; and as you note, even Mormon himself (who wrote the header to 3 Nephi that you’re referring to) didn’t read it that way. As I mention in my preceding post, in what would be the eighth year of Zedekiah’s reign Nephi says he doesn’t know if Jerusalem has been destroyed yet. About twelve years after Zedekiah’s coronation, Lehi announces that Jerusalem has indeed been destroyed. Jeremiah 39 tells us that Babylon besieged the city in Year 9, and that the city fell in Year 11. (It’s also worth noting that Jeremiah had several brushes with the law in his lifetime, some apparently even before Zedekiah was on the throne; so Nephi’s referring to Jeremiah’s imprisonment could have been made early in Zedekiah’s reign. See https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-could-nephi-have-known-about-jeremiahs-imprisonment) Furthermore, because we know that Jerusalem was under siege for at least a year and a half, there’s absolutely no way that Jerusalem could have been destroyed “immediately” after the Lehites’ departure, unless they left after the siege was already well under way (which doesn’t jibe with Nephi then slipping in and out of the city three more times, including with Ishmael and his entire household). That’s why I don’t take Nephi’s use of the word “immediately” thirty years after the event in question, very seriously.

This something that we need clear defining of terms on to discuss The Patriarchal Order is God's order and it is not dead because God is not dead. We can't kill God's order... but we can very much cut ourselves off from it. It is a very sad day when we have been so thoroughly cut off that we mistakenly think it is dead rather then we are dead. Now in many ways the Priesthood and the Patriarchal order are the same thing. Realizing this then we can also realize that the Patriarchal Order must be handled as outlined for the Priesthood in Doctrine and Covenants Section 121. This means we can be cut off from it very easily. That is one way to define the Patriarchal Order. Another (and much more commonly used one) is by those that claim to live by it. In this group you have those that are living it right...(few) those that are trying to it right but failing to some degree (many), and those in full on Unrighteous Dominion while calling it the Patriarchal Order (more then there really should be). Under this second definition there are many that need to be called to repentance, and rightfully so. This is not a problem with the Order itself but a more general problem of the Human Fallen State. Now there are some that like to define Feminism as a call to repentance for the misuse and abuse of this authority, and as far and as long as it is simply rebranded repentance it is as acceptable as repentance itself. However no one should be surprised that God's order and God's ways are under attack... That instead of calling upon men to step up to their covenants and obligations. They are being told to stand aside, to stand down, to stop trying, that they never can do it, so they should never try. This is also a definition of Feminism and it is utterly toxic while hiding behind Girl Power catch phrases. You call tell what definition they are using both sets of terms by its impact on men. If it is a call for Men to step up and be more Christ-like it is acceptable whatever the branding... If it is a call for Men to avoid their obligations (either through unrighteous Dominion or abandonment of responsibility) it is toxic no matter the branding.

I'm not sure how changes in the wording in the endowment constitute the death of the Patriarchal Order. Especially when, on its face, the changes seem to align better with what is being taught by current and past leadership. I mean, the actual wording in the temple before was pretty hard to square up with "equal partners." Will I concede that societal pressures may have been the premise on which an inquiry about changing the language changed? Absolutely! But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Societies morph and change, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. The temple ceremonies have been adjusted to reflect some of those changes several times already. Yet I don't hear a lot of complaints that privacy concerns altering how we do initiatories is a sign of apostasy. Another way of looking at it is that these are implementations of principles. Implementations can change without altering the principles. Saying the Patriarchal Order is dead because we changed a few words in the endowment is kind of like saying the Law of Consecration is dead because we did away with the United Order. With respect to Ordain Women, it's hard to make a case that Ordain Women is killing the Patriarchal Order when most of the leaders of that movement have been excommunicated, disciplined, or driven underground. Sure seems to me like the Patriarchal Order survived that ordeal. Regardless, according to the talk you linked to, "the patriarchal order will have no enduring relevance for those who do not qualify for an eternal marriage relationship." It's hard to kill something that exists only under certain covenants. To stamp it out dead, you'd have to kill the authority to make those covenants. The greater threat is individuals either refusing to make those covenants, or failing to live up to them. But now we're not really talking about killing the Patriarchal Order. Now we're talking about getting people to live it. I'd argue that is fundamentally a different concern.

And they don't stink! I've been so used to a certain amount of low-production values and cheeziness in LDS visual media, I'm a little in awe.

Perhaps I just do not understand legalise - Maybe @Just_A_Guy can comment but the bill has no teeth beyond sending counselors (religious or otherwise) information that being LGBTQ is not a "stigma". And stigma is not well defined in the legal sense. This bill seams to me to be a big No-Op. Religious individuals or anyone else concerned about gender confusion are already labeled bigots and homophobes. So what is the big whoop? The Traveler

I’m actually really impressed with it! My only complaint is having Rick Macy as Lehi. Having him play the wise old man in every church movie is becoming incredibly redundant. To me, whenever I see him and Nathan Mitchell, it distracts from the video/movie. But other than that I loved it. I enjoyed the approach to All the sons of Lehi, I REALLY appreciate how young Nephi is, I’m actually pretty excited to see how they will age him over this first season.

Although @Vort gave an excellent answer that I believe is likely sufficient - I will add a little bit of speculation for which may be as wrong or more so than right. I will begin by saying that G-d is a G-d of truth and will not lie - but he may wait until we are ready to understand greater truths based on your understanding of truths we have and understand. Thus as Isaiah witnessed - that we learn line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept. And so we understand that marriage is ordained (ordinance supported by law and covenant) of G-d. So, as the song, "Oh My Father" logically assumes - we have a mother in heaven. But what if it was possible that we have different mothers? Might Satan exploit such and deceive many to think one mother is greater than another and thus some "children" were greater or less than someone else or that we are not the "brothers" and "sisters" we thought? History would seem to indicate that for whatever foolish reason one person would think themself better than another. It is already difficult enough to love others as we do ourselves. Whatever the reason - I speculate it is because we are not able to bear it - yet. The Traveler

Of course, I can't answer such speculative questions (and I know you don't expect me to). Do glorified celestial beings even require each other to provide "protection"? How can such a question possibly even be considered without knowing far more about the order of heaven and the hereafter than we do? From our perspective, God the Father, and doubtless the Mother, are beings of absolute power, might, and dominion. They are not, indeed cannot be, vulnerable to physical insult or physical/mental/emotional/spiritual threat as we are. But that does not mean threats do not exist, though they would likely be threats that we don't understand at this stage of our eternal lives. As for why the Mother does not more visibly help the Father, of course that's speculative, too, and any answer would be nonsense. But my nonsense answer goes something like this: In the early stages of a baby's mortal life, the mother is the central being of his existence. The mother literally gives life and provides life; Eve (Chava) is well-named. The mother is the baby's first and most primal love and attachment. In the earliest stages, it is the mother and not the father who has the power to give and sustain life. As the child grows, the father becomes increasingly important. By the time the child is taking his or her first tentative steps into adulthood, the father should have become as important as the mother, and perhaps more important in many ways. This is especially true for boys, but also is true for girls. Both parents model aspects and roles of adult behavior, but traditionally, it has been the father's role to interact socially. The father and the mother form the Janus of society, with the mother facing inward toward the home and the father facing outward toward the larger community. Eve indeed gives and nourishes life, and without her existence is impossible. But Adam leads us to a civilized life infinitely more rewarding than mere existence (and, by the way, without him existence is also impossible). Both roles are glorious and necessary. I entertain the thought that, in the premortal realms, we viewed our Parents much as little children among us view their own mortal parents. I imagine that we knew our Mother perhaps better than anyone else. We glorified her and worshiped at her feet. She gave us life and she sustained us in our earliest times, and she was our all. Our Father was, perhaps, a more remote-seeming figure, exciting and powerful and maybe a bit mysterious. But as we grew and developed through whatever processes we had in our premortal life, we of necessity approached our Father and learned at his hand. When the time came for the life we are living now, we were to devote ourselves to finding the Father. That is his role. We do not learn much about or speak much of the Mother, because this is no the time for that. Our mind, our heart, our whole soul must be devoted to the Father, to finding him out and following him. We have not "lost" Mother; she will be there eternally, at the Father's side, a divine Consort meet for a perfect and all-powerful Being. But we do not pray to her; that would be wholly inappropriate, unless perhaps, as with her Son, she were standing before us. She knows well her own duties and those of the Father, and she holds to her own place and duty, as does the Father. So quit worrying about the heavenly Mother. When the time is right, we will become reacquainted with her. For now, quit being distracted and instead do as we have been taught: To seek the Father with full purpose of heart.

Hmm. We do disagree somewhat; as I think the “patriarchal order” primarily revolves around the way various generations are linked to one another and the way blessings and legacies and kingdoms and glories pass forwards and backwards between generations—the fitting of an individual family unit into a much greater whole. In that paradigm, I see the gender roles you describe as being to the patriarchal order, similar to what the “united order” is to the Law of Consecration: a temporal (and, I hasten to add, wholly righteous and appropriate and even necessary) application of an eternal principle; but one that may apply very differently in the eternities. (What, exactly, is Heavenly Father protecting Heavenly Mother—and us—against at this stage of Their existence; and why don’t we see Heavenly Mother helping Heavenly Father in a more visible way?)

This comment makes me wonder what you think the Patriarchal Order is. We should establish that before we can answer your question.

That's an interpretation of Open Carry I've never considered.

It has something to do with the laws. From what i understand, Most clergymen of any religion are not allowed to testify in court against someone who spoke to them in confidentiality. A father in the Catholic Church cannot report a crime confessed to him for repentance purposes.

At the barest minimum we can honor our parents for being the vessels God used to bring us into the world. Sometimes there's not much more than that. Abuse, molestation, abandonment, weakness in the face of abusiveness...the list of human stumbles, fumbles and failures can be long and sad. Still, they are who Heavenly Father chose to bring us into mortality. I come from them. I am who I am because of them. Perhaps much of the result is difficult and broken. BUT... not all of it. So, yeah...try to discern the good in you that they influenced, and be thankful for that. In the end, when we honor our parents in whatever ways we can that are true, we declare our trust in God. After all, OP is disappointed. Perhaps most of us are, to some extent. Nevertheless, we honor our parents and thus say, "God, your ways are not our ways, so I will trust that you brought me to this place in my life for your good reasons. I will serve you as I am, with my roots as they are."

I have do doubt that area 51 is covering something up - and I am quite sure that those that put whatever cover up into place are quite pleased with the impression that UFO's and extraterrestrials are what is being covered up. Perhaps they are the ones fueling that fire the most. The Traveler

These are two young women. Please France, send me more!

So I sat with my kids this afternoon and we played Life. For those who haven't heard of it (all 3 of you) it's the boardgame where you go through "life" with a job, income, kids, buying a house, etc. The object of the game is to retire with the highest amount of money. So my daughter ended he game with almost $2M and 1 kid. She won. I ended the game with... less money than that and also had 1 kid. My son also had less money, and he had 6 (count 'em) 6 kids. He had so many kids he needed a second car game piece to tote them all around. So my daughter announced that she had won. (Which is true, by the game rules.) But then a thought occurred to me, which I shared with them. Her in-game persona will end the game of life with just one child to say farewell. The same went for me. But my son... his in-game self would pass on with an entire room full of people who love him. I think the game rules have the wrong victory conditions.

Said Mirk, posting live from the dirt road leading to Area51, part of the team ready to gun down the Naruto runners.

"This is my rifle, this is my gun..."

The manual on page 92 (see attached) seems to supplement the teaching that the destruction of Jerusalem occured immediately after Lehi left; as it references 2 Nephi 25:10 - Wherefore, it hath been told them concerning the destruction which should come upon them, immediately after my father left Jerusalem; nevertheless, they hardened their hearts; and according to my prophecy they have been destroyed, save it be those which are carried away captive into Babylon. The introductory notes for 3 Nephi 1 says "And Helaman was the son of Helaman, who was the son of Alma, who was the son of Alma, being a descendant of Nephi who was the son of Lehi, who came out of Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, the king of Judah." If you don't believe this, it would help if you could explain your toughts on what year in Zedekiah's reign was Jerusalem destroyed and when he was carried away captive to Babylon. I don't know Jim but on the surface he appears to be ex-LDS. Thank you, Gale

"Say what now?" - this guy: