The Folk Prophet

Another good thought that I didn't address. I actually did have this thought though. She talks about the childbirth thing being only positive, and clearly bearing children IS positive, but the "greatly multiply thy sorrow" thing and "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" certainly implies something more than -- "You did good Eve. Let me reward you." As Connie suggests, the action in the Garden by Eve (and then by Adam) was transgression. And as much as LDS thinking does not condemn Adam and Eve, the reason is because they were willing to repent, take on covenants, and do the will of the Lord thereafter. Had Adam and Eve chosen NOT to repent of their transgression and submit to God's will, surely they would have been condemned.

Yeah. Had some very interesting ideas, for sure. And my sense is that there's some real insight there. However, there are a couple of things that people like to just ignore and/or discard when speaking about "feminist" issues in the church in today's "equality" driven, politically correct world. First, she talks about a mistranslated in the Bible of the world "over", wherein "rule over" should be "rule with". That's fine. But it kind of just disregards other scriptures. First Moses 4:22, which has the exact same wording. If "rule over" was wrong, why wasn't it fixed in Moses? And what about Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1, and the like? Second, she sort of refers to a temple covenant in there. Without going into any detail here, I think it's problematic to ignore the older wording in the covenant that was softened in 1990. To just ignore that and throw it out as archaic implies that the actual covenant made prior to 1990 was false doctrine and every woman going through the temple prior to that was literally covenanting with the Lord to something that the Lord didn't actually want them to covenant. Seems problematic. Finally, modern day LDS feminists in their approach to explaining the husband/wife dynamic tend to conveniently forget about polygamy. I know some use equality thinking to contend that polygamy therefore cannot logically be the eternal order of things. But there are way to many historical records of those in the early days of polygamy having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it is what convinced them to join into polygamy for that to fly in my thinking. I'm not saying the article is wrong or that men and women should not be equally yoked in the family dynamic...but there's something that is not being understood somewhere in there that needs to be addressed. I can't say I have explanations. But I can, certainly, notice that they're missing.

Hehe. But social media is the devil's playground.

Well I just saw it on social media today! :) Was it discussed here though? If so, I want to add to the discussion likely. If not...let's discuss!!

I am a Mormon Because I am a Feminist Some really insightful thinking here. I don't know if I agree with it entirely (though mostly). There's a few problems with it I think. But we can discuss as the thread gets rolling. I want to see what others think.

Uh... same diff.

Haha. Yeah...not quite what I meant..... Good and healthy for separating the wheat from the tares.

Right on. The church of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll!

Begun...but maybe not really. I think we're still in the time of gathering. Hasten the work and all. But there will, certainly, come a time when this will occur. However, I don't think it's going to be simple excommunications. Something more dramatic I expect--war, famine, earthquake, more war--maybe combined with a good healthy dose of polygamy coming back and a whole bunch of excommunications too?? :) Who knows.

Once again, I didn't say that. You seem to want to pick a fight. I'm not engaging.

Hmm...whether gay relations hurt other people or not aside... All I said was that agency and laws of the land do not follow one another. Agency is not a good argument for legalizing something. Your reaction is sure reading a whole lot more into it than that.

Or not seeing their husband for three days while he's off gallivanting with the newer, younger, hotter wives. (I don't know why a ninja. I've just been wanting to use that emoticon for a while now.)

Following this logic one would have to contend, legally, for complete anarchy. There are many things that "free" agency allows for that are curtailed by the laws of the land, and quite reasonably so.

Fair enough. But you did say:

This is pretty similar to what I know of my family history as well, and what I know of other's family histories.

The wives are sealed only to their husbands in the plural marriage relationship, not to each other.

This was also never a rule in ye olden days. Many, many polygamous families shared households.

This is wherein you're lucky. If everyone would faithfully and diliegenly magnify this, none would feel left out. It would solve a whole bunch of problems. I've long been of the opinion that HT and VT are the keys to bringing about Zion. Zion will come no faster than the church does its HT and VT at an honorable, faithful, and diligent level.

I will. The priesthood is an eternal order. It's not something that changes. The patriarchal order is an eternal order. It's not something that changes. And, moreover, women have, and always have had, exactly what they need for exaltation. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, of course...but I'm not.

In the spirit of God not being one of chaos, I really can't see where He'd inspire one member that women should have the priesthood against what He's telling the prophet. That seems pretty chaotic to me.

See now, I don't totally disagree with this. I think it's incomplete. You "can" divorce it in cases, and should, but it is not always divorced. Clearly our feelings are highly related. My point is that our self interest ought not be the prime catalyst for determining right and wrong. If you'd stop responding to what I say with a defensive, we're-just-bickering, p.o.v. maybe you'd find we have some understanding that can actually be shared.

Agreed. :)

Just curious. Have you considered that your view of it as merely "bickering" might just be influencing your interpretations of my points? Just curious. I am not just bickering. I'm trying to uphold gospel principles, morality, doctrine, and righteousness.

I have no opinion on that. I inferred it from the fact that I posted that it didn't work that way and your first sentence in response was "I disagree." *shrug* Maybe I misunderstood.

You're responding like I was arguing with you. I am not. You said "Exactly" and I was further supporting that with scripture. If you had said "Boloney" instead, I can see it coming across like a debate. Not sure why you took it that way.