• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Obolus

  1. I think you may be right. But the question of veiling surrounding Abraham and those in his group is perhaps more related to courtship than to covering up. Rebekah traveled with Abraham/Isaac's male servant ostensibly with no veil, but veiled herself when meeting Isaac for the first time (Gen 24). But who knows how, or in what ways, the tradition of veiling changed or shifted between Sarah/Rebekah (1800 BC) and Mohammad's time (600 AD)? Was the Qur'an the first social document to institute public veiling? Or did Islam inherit the practice? It's difficult to know. And even more difficult to know if the idea originated with a man or a woman.
  2. Loudmouth, thank-you so much for sharing this experience. I think it places hijab in a different context than the messages that come through the media. The association with covenant makes me think about Muslim veiling in an entirely different light. I wonder how their veils are initially implemented. I've seen pre-teens wearing them... I wonder what their initiation is, and if it is a community event or merely between mothers and daughters.
  3. My apologies, Pam. And sorry also to those who feel I have spammed. My main questions are those offered in the blog: Do the differences in LDS and Muslim veiling of women create more differences between the cultures? Or is there some common ground to be gleaned there? One commenter on the blog did have reservations about veiling, yet her experience in the temple didn't necessarily leave her feeling oppressed. Is there any teaching regarding the veil and its symbolic meaning? Is it taught? And if not, what are the consequences of requiring it, and only of women, without a discussion? My concerns are primarily retention. My family is dominated by members who left full activity shortly after being endowed and/or married in the temple.
  4. Jayanna, thank-you so much. What a fantastic website/resource.
  5. Your point here is instructive, Lisarp03. For Mormons, entrance into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom requires that males be married. The rules infer that the Father is likely married also, and thus his godhood is contingent upon the other sovereign in the equation. The term "God", in the LDS context, infers a divine identity that suggests at least two individuals. Our Heavenly parents are "one in purpose" just as much as the Godhead. If that's speculation, then it is the most beautiful and powerful kind.
  6. I think the RLDS term is smartest: "The Inspired Version". I like the idea of Joseph being an editor and/or reviser. It's an interesting role for a prophet. Christ, after all, dictated the revising of the Nephites' record when he gave his sermon at the temple, as they had forgotten to add the words of Samuel the Lamanite.
  7. Slavery has been the issue at hand since before the world was. All wars should be understood in context of the war in Heaven.
  8. This is the best point made in this entire thread. It only makes sense that it would come from a woman. According to Christ, the body is a temple. If we take that to be true, then the womb/vulva must be understood as a veil. In fact, that is the only understanding that will ever lead you to pay the respect to a woman that she deserves. It all stem's from Jesus' statement, so I don't care if it's speculation. It makes perfect sense. Indeed, all must pass through that veil into this world. It is a gate between worlds through which the whole soul must pass. Just like the baptismal font and the other ordinances. Which is precisely why women of various cultures wear veils on their wedding day. The veil they wear, just as Kate Middleton when she married Prince William, is placed on their head to identify their authority... which necessarily mirrors that of the Priesthood. So what does that mean? It means that all women are sentinels of one of the Lord's veils. In other words, they are veil workers. It also means that they hold a "yes" and a "no" regarding a temple of God (their bodies) just as any bishop or stake president does. And why do we not need subsequent temple ordinances to seal children "born in the covenant" to their parents? Because in the context of the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage, the mother is authorized as a sealer that completes the sealing with her own temple body. In fact, her power to seal is just as binding as that of any male, Priesthood-holding sealer in any temple. That is the truth. The reason that this understanding of women and their authority is not typical in the church is because we don't take the symbols that the Lord has given us to their logical end: The font is a womb. The chapel is a womb. The temple is a womb. When you go into each of these places for the first time, you don't yet belong to the veils that they contain. But once you pass through those veils, you become part of the "bride" that belongs to Christ. The reason why men are given the Priesthood is so that Christ can involve them in the veil work of the second veil. Women already have the first veil, so that's why the scriptures are relatively silent towards them. When women are addressed in scripture, it is usually regarding something going on in their womb. It is men that must be brought up to speed as far as veil work is concerned. People often point to the hierarchy and "political" rank of the brethren, but what the Priesthood really boils down to is ordinances... the right to preside over them and perform them. Fatherhood by itself is simply not commensurate with motherhood. If our bodies are temples, then birth is an ordinance, period. How will any man in the world answer the fact that women put their lives on the line to pass infants into mortality? Bread-winning alone is not enough. Providing a home is not enough. Being loving and supportive isn't enough. Only ordinances can answer birth. She endows the child with mortality, and he endows the child with Eternal Life through the Priesthood of God. Hence, in the church it is the Priesthood that creates gender equality. And veil worker is the most proper context in which a woman's authority should be understood.
  9. Because I think your interpretation is erroneous. I think that when you take "pure wine" to mean "alcohol free" you are necessarily projecting a meaning that you (or someone else) made up. I also question anyone who doesn't speak for the church, as should we all. Wine is alcoholic by definition. Hence, "wine of the grape" is simply the traditional meaning. To add the adjective "pure" seems to be a reference to the fact that wine made by the Saints would be of known quality, whereas that made by their enemies might be laced with something undesirable. I really just want to see some examples of the kind of wine you speak of. Either described by a wine maker, cited in some sort of credible source, or anything from a GA. Searching_For_The_Truth mentioned some association with an ancient tradition of wine making. Ok: let's have a look at it. If you don't have any other source, then I have no reason to believe that it is a true interpretation. If you do have something other than your personal interpretation, I want to examine it. This is not about your word. It is about the interpretation of God's word, so two or three credible witnesses must be established.
  10. It doesn't, but I am relieved to see that there is a second person making this claim that is not JuanP because the guy refuses to cite a source other than his own interpretation of the verse. I now have hope that there is in fact an existing reference. Perhaps you could provide it?
  11. To whom? Since there is no other source specifying that "pure wine" = "non-alcoholic" besides yourself, I'm inclined to disagree. Where did you even come up with the idea? Did you read it and come to the conclusion or is there some other source? So it is good to use wine for the sacrament. Just as good as water, according to the D&C.
  12. Apologies for not making myself clear: What makes you think 89:6 references anything other than typical alcoholic wine?
  13. I think the whole thing is a reach from a post-WOW context. Wine is not grape juice. Christ's first miracle wasn't to make grape juice. If it was then it wouldn't have been worthy of the commentary from the governor of the feast at the wedding. D&C 27 is pretty specific that the Lord is concerned about the saints purchasing wine from their enemies. To make "new" wine is to do just that, make it yourself so that you know the source. To project our current law upon the acts of Christ or Smith seems to be a mountain of a retrofit. Is there something wrong with either of them actually drinking alcohol?
  14. I own David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, and it is one of the most intriguing books on the Church that I have ever read. The chapters on the Blacks and the Priesthood and Ezra Taft Benson are worth the purchase price alone, and the chapters about Correlation and The Building Crisis help to explain the reasoning behind several of the Church's current policies regarding handling auxiliaries and the (lack of) transparency regarding our fiscal records. Also the chapter on Earnest L Wilkinson/BYU is pretty fascinating. If you want to understand the modern iteration of the Church, this book is mandatory reading. It's a good thing McConkie's father-in-law was Joseph Fielding Smith, who was in the First Presidency at the time of MD's publication. Talk about having an ace up your sleeve.
  15. Where does this notion of "pure wine" come from? I tried to look it up but found nothing but companies that are actual wine sellers (the alcoholic kind). Any sources?
  16. All ordinances work the Lord's veil. If your heart is in the right place and you participate in these ordinances following the light of Christ and the commandment carved above the doors of every temple you will necessarily be sanctified by Christ. Baptism and washings are simply the most overt examples, but all of the saving ordinances have the potential for having the same effect because they all enact Christ's Atonement in your life (if you allow it). Sacrament is the most holy of all the rites according to Jeffrey R. Holland. The chapel veils it from the world, and the emblems are always covered when not in use. We enter and exit the chapel like Jonah, swallowed and expelled by the whale. Hence the whale, the chapel, the temple, and the font are all wombs symbolically. The intent of entering them is always sanctification, rebirth and belonging. Do not mistake the commonality of the rite with a lack of veil work. All the saving ordinances work the Lord's veil without exception, and that veil is a sacred, immutable tool of God that does nothing but sanctify or condemn. Hence the command not to partake of the Sacrament unworthily because it is like eating and drinking damnation you your soul.
  17. All veil work is sanctifying. Baptism, sacrament, washings/anointings, endowments, and the N&EC are all sanctifying because they all involve veil work.
  18. They should just plan future buildings with motherhood in mind. Simply build two separate rooms (next to each other) one for changing and the other for nursing. Other wards should be remodeled. If there is one aspect of Mormonism that should be facilitated it is motherhood. That said, many mothers will simply not be as considerate as Gwen is when it comes to diaper disposal. A quality diaper pail should always be available.
  19. Faith doesn't deny or defy evidence. It simply puts the relationship in question before the evidence. Thus it is not a dichotomy, but rather a list of priorities. Hence, if you are a husband and you come home from work and find another man sitting at the dinner table with your wife, you enact faith (a choice) to set your immediate questions aside until you have all the facts. You don't attempt to glean these facts immediately with demands, you allow her to explain when she is able, and the explanation will likely come as a matter of course within the ensuing conversation. ("Hi honey. This is my cousin Pete from Pennsylvania. He's here for the funeral.") That is the expression of faith. It relies on the fruits of the Spirit: patience, charity, long suffering, humility, Etc. This course requires that you have a spine. In fact, the survival of all relationships depend on the participants having the backbone to "live the question" for varying amounts of time. In this effort, evidence is not denied or defied. It is set aside until it can be properly engaged because it is not the priority. The relationship is the priority. So it is in our relationship with God. Questions must be lived, and they include the veracity of scripture, the controversy surrounding Joseph Smith, Priesthood bans, taboo polygamy, Mountain Meadows, Failed banks, Salamander letters, OT & BOM genocides, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Nephi slaying Laban, et al. We must live these questions faithfully until the time is right for both parties in the relationship to participate in a dialog of explanation. Faith can only be understood and discussed in terms of relationships because all of the technology (veils, seer stones, scriptures, temples) and techniques (reverence, respect, ordinance protocol) of these relationships that we are in with God rely on it to be enacted. Faith does not exist outside of a relationship between two individuals. If you are giving yourself to an idol, process or apparatus that is an end in and of itself then you are engaging in a relationship that is necessarily finite, and thus mechanically dogmatic. If you want any relationship to be destroyed you utilize doubt, which begins with questions. Respect and reverence for the relationship, in this case, are eschewed in favor of demands. ("Who the hell is this guy?") Doubt is useful in finite processes (like secular science, shipping, and finance), but is an inadequate tool/technique with regards to the things of God because none of the questions of God can be answered on our terms (Descartes' notion of doubt). They must be answered on his terms (Christ's example of faith).
  20. The truth is that everything, no matter how simple, has infinite complexity. Take the island of Hawaii. If you were to measure its perimeter with a yard stick that were a mile long, you'd come up with a figure. But if you were to measure them with a yard stick that were instead an actual yard you'd come up with a much larger figure because that yard stick would be able to measure details in the perimeter that the mile stick couldn't get to. The measurement for a foot, and inch, and a tenth of an inch would all be increasingly larger, and honesty would eventually lead you to determine that the perimeter of Hawaii is actually infinite. Even if you are just talking about clipping your fingernails, there is no real end to the detail and complexity of this simple act. You can discuss it scientifically, historically, anthropologically, metaphysically, you can discuss its mythology and sociology, you can write 5000 stories about how clipped or unclipped fingernails affected people's relationships, church basketball games, and guitar lessons. The gospel can of course be understood in the most basic terms and ordinances. But to dismiss or ignore its complexity and depth of symbolism is to necessarily plateau in your growth in knowledge. The Lord has declared that his glory is intelligence and that those who advance in knowledge in this life will have the advantage in the world to come. It's not just a statement of fact. It's an invitation to advance.
  21. It kind of seems to be part of the 'science fiction' of the church. Polygamy isn't the only thing the church still generally embraces as a true principle yet is embarrassed about. Concepts such as Kolob and Kaukaubeam for instance. In truth, many of the people that respect our humanitarian efforts and that are friendly with us politically still consider us to be founded on a heritage that is a mixture of Helter Skelter and Star Trek the Next Generation. Short of the sects started by L Ron Hubbard, who is more Sci-Fi than the Mormon Church? Polygamy is strangely a part of that shadow aspect of our psyche. I'm curious, though, what people's opinions are on why the whole concept of the 'House of Israel' and Abraham's covenant would involve polygamy so heavily. I mean, this family that we are in, or that we have been adopted into, seems saturated by this concept. Isn't this the covenant that seals us to God? Joseph Smith didn't have to ask the question. I think that's what bothers me about the concept the most.