Traveler

The problem is that western society is moving from punishing an individual’s actions/behavior to punishing a person for his thoughts or beliefs.
 
We have a history of discriminating against people just for how they looked, and you think its progress to punish someone because of what they think?
 
This group made a covenant agreeing to keep their sexual activity within the bounds of heterosexual marriage and now they are being prevented from practicing law? A covenant to honor heterosexual marriage…sounds awful familiar. How long before Mormons are banned from employment in Canada because they too make this same covenant?
 
When it comes to LDS it’s not par for course and the shoe is on the other foot. Our people had to flee their country because our beliefs and behavior were not tolerated. 
 
There are no new victims here..it’s just the same old ones. My hope is that one day people in these groups with their self-righteous indignations and demand for historical reparations and “victim” rights will look in the mirror and recognize the face of evil. 

Perhaps it is my upbringing - but service for any selfish reason is not my understanding of service.   I am not saying that hard work is not worthy of payment - just that hard work for pay to me has always been responsibility and a job - service however, is very different - if you get paid it is not a service.  If you do it for fee (not for glory) then it is a service.  Thus I was taught that when I go to work I ought to give value to my payment - but I was also taught to do extra as a service - not to get paid more.
 
In fact I caused quite a stir within a company I once worked for when I was called into the office of one of the vice president's and offered a new position in the company that would also increase my pay by a large %.   I turned it down and explained that I was trying to figure out how to spend more time with my family and less time at work.  This was a surprise because I was spending 60 hours a week at work and only being paid for 40 hours.  The vice president asked why I worked so hard when I did not want more responsibility.  I answered that I wanted the company, our customers, and my coworkers to succeed and I felt that the last few projects I had worked on were in trouble and needed the extra time.  I had hoped that instead of being offered to be able to work the extra hours forever - that I would rather get some extra time off.
 
What is interesting is that particular VP ended up joining the LDS church - and then some years later he was fired - which under the circumstances convinced me to  look for work elsewhere.  But the company that once controlled almost 90% of the marked share is now not even considered a player in the automation field.  I was sure that that the reason for the company failure??? - was that the company management became consumed by their own glory.
 
Even with G-d - I believe it is not about glory - it is about sacrifice for a greater purpose than self.

The "fullness" of the gospel cannot happen without the "fullness" of the priesthood. The restoration is not complete:
 
Parable Of The Nobleman

I think I understand. I don't see it the same way, but that may be a good way of looking at it.
 
Here's how I see it.
 
The "fulness of the gospel" is the fullness of the plan of salvation, which can be explained in fairly simple terms. The details behind the broad points are implicit therein, but do not all need detailed explanation to qualify the broad point as sufficient as a fullness. The basic ingredients of the gospel are faith, hope, charity and love, which lead to repentance and obedience. This is made possible by the Atonement, and all this in place that we may return to our Father in Heaven and become like Him. That's the gospel.
 
It would be unreasonably to expect, for example, that a fullness of the gospel requires every commandment and directive from God to be inclusive to count as a fullness. The fullness in this case is "keep the commandments". Then the commandments come - sometimes line upon line. Sometimes specific to cultures. Sometimes specific to individuals or circumstance. Sometimes permanent and everlasting. But all are contained within the idea of "keep the commandments".
 
The Book of Mormon is the means whereby God chose to deliver a clear and concise presentation of the fullness of the plan of salvation. If you went through the points taught in the Book of Mormon you get a fairly consistent - obey, sacrifice, put off the natural man, obey, repent, come unto Christ, obey, repent, Christ, love, love, faith, hope, Christ, repent, etc., etc., etc...
 
Is it in the Bible too? Yes. But it is not as plain. The Book of Mormon makes it plain, and thereby is a better resource for the fullness.
 
Ultimately, I mostly agree with anatess, in spite of the fact that I debated the point a bit on it. :) I think it requires a bit more than to simply say the fullness is Christ, however, mostly based on the fact of "plainness". In order to have a true fullness it must be given, plainly, how to follow Christ. That doesn't necessarily mean every single detail of how must be included to qualify as a fullness, but that it must be plain enough that those who so humble themselves know the path they should follow. The Book of Mormon qualifies, and exceedingly well, at giving us a plain understanding of how we press forward. Take Moroni 10:3-5. Take Alma 32. Take the sermons by King Benjamin and Abinadi. These profound concepts and teachings are how we follow Christ, and they are not plainly in the Bible.

When I was in high school there was a beautiful and wonderful girl that had polio and was unable to walk without crutches – usually she was in a wheel chair.  I never thought at the time to ask her out to a dance because she could not dance.  If I could go back in time - I would tell my earlier self to ask her to the junior Prom; take her to be best (most expensive) restraint in Utah and make the evening special.  I did not run with the most popular crowd but one of the more popular crowds because they were such a good and fun bunch.  We all knew her and liked her but she never got asked by anyone to any dances.  We just never thought a girl that could not walk would even want to go to a dance.  Many years later I learned that she cried many times because guys like me never thought to ask her out to a dance.

When I was in high school there was a beautiful and wonderful girl that had polio and was unable to walk without crutches – usually she was in a wheel chair.  I never thought at the time to ask her out to a dance because she could not dance.  If I could go back in time - I would tell my earlier self to ask her to the junior Prom; take her to be best (most expensive) restraint in Utah and make the evening special.  I did not run with the most popular crowd but one of the more popular crowds because they were such a good and fun bunch.  We all knew her and liked her but she never got asked by anyone to any dances.  We just never thought a girl that could not walk would even want to go to a dance.  Many years later I learned that she cried many times because guys like me never thought to ask her out to a dance.

When I was in high school there was a beautiful and wonderful girl that had polio and was unable to walk without crutches – usually she was in a wheel chair.  I never thought at the time to ask her out to a dance because she could not dance.  If I could go back in time - I would tell my earlier self to ask her to the junior Prom; take her to be best (most expensive) restraint in Utah and make the evening special.  I did not run with the most popular crowd but one of the more popular crowds because they were such a good and fun bunch.  We all knew her and liked her but she never got asked by anyone to any dances.  We just never thought a girl that could not walk would even want to go to a dance.  Many years later I learned that she cried many times because guys like me never thought to ask her out to a dance.

I find it interesting the avenues you explorer.  I also like the idea that you throw out ideas and concepts to be discussed openly.  I think you are looking at ownership verses stewardship in conjunction with our pre-earth existence and our mortal experience.   Perhaps it is from my training but I tend to take a premise and try to apply it to actual test cases.
 
My view is somewhat slanted by my experience so I will begin with something I experienced with my father - who is the best type and shadow to our heavenly Father I have encountered personally in my own mortal existence.   My father owned several large apartment complexes when I was in college.  One summer he decided to have some of them painted so I hatched a plan to earn summer money painting for my father.  He liked my plan and I was given the go a head to put together a team to accomplish the task - he would pay me and my team.  Trusting my father to be just I never got a commitment on what we would be paid - just that we would receive profession pay - not by the hour but by the job.
 
It all sounded good and I gathered a team - we worked very hard and completed the first of two complexes and my father paid everyone for our first job.  However, much to my surprise I was paid much less than everyone else.  This shocked me because I was over everybody else on the job.  In addition I was always the first to start, last to finish and the hardest working in between - and my father knew it.  Disappointed I approached my father and asked him why I had been short changed and paid less than everybody else.   I remember well setting in my father's office almost in tears thinking I had disappointed him.  Never had my father openly complemented me and this was no exception.  First he reviewed with me the job and every little thing I could have done better.  He then pointed out that I was his son and because of that much more was expected of me than was expected of anyone else.  Everyone else on the team had exceeded his expectations so he had given them a bonus.  He said I had only done what he had expected me to do and since I had not exceeded his expectations I would not receive a bonus - in fact he said that he had expected better of me.   In addition he explained that everybody knew I was his son and he wanted to make sure that everybody understood that I did not get any special or unfair treatment from him just because I was his son.  Finely he said that because I was his son I would receive from him training, opportunity and many other non-tangible benefits just being his son worth much more than the money.  Plus he said that when he died I would inherit with my siblings - all he had.  At the time I was not impressed - it would take many years before I would appreciate his great gifts to me.
 
Being my father's son and learning from him and his example was and is worth far more that his estate.
 
I see strong parallels to the life and mission of Jesus - except that his father on occasions said he was well pleased.  Jesus does more than any of us from the very beginning all the way to the end and completion.  Yet he will not get any more of the Father's estate than any of the rest of us that have covenanted to complete the job.  Jesus has more talent than any of us and much more was expected of him - but he is given in the end no extra.  Is his stewardship greater? Yes!  Has he earned more? Yes!  Was he given more?  Yes!  But because he was the Son he did not get any special treatment and in essence we get paid more?  But being the Son he experienced more in the experience than we possibly can - and unlike me - it appears he appreciates already his opportunity to be in charge of the Father's team.

First I want to welcome all that have entered into the discussion.  There are a couple of points I would like to make.  Snoozer makes some very interesting points.  In my discussion with her - I admit to pushing the limits somewhat.  This has been for two reasons.  One is to determine if Snoozer recognizes any complicity in our spirits when our spirits are tempted - especially when an individual turns physically away from temptation but then turns back to indulge.   The second reason is to explorer my own thinking to see if I can find logic to adjust some of my thinking. 
 
I have wondered how much a spirit affects the physical and how much the physical affects the spiritual.   It is my personal opinion that such relationship between the spiritual and physical is more dynamic than static.  But this is based in my own experience and I seem to be able to alter this condition through discipline of both what I think is my spiritual self and also my physical self.  Snoozer seems to have experience somewhat different than mine.  But I have been unable to drill down with Snoozer to understand her thinking beyond theological interpretation.  I am inclined to think that most of her responses to me have been mostly defensive to to her position.  However, I am not sure.  But because she has a very different opinion than that which I am accustomed I think there is something to be gleaned if I can just get past what I think is a defensive posture to questions that push the limits of the discussion.  I admit openly this is something I tend to create when I ask aggressive questions though it is not my intention - It is my curiosity that pushes the envelop of some posters tolerance.   But Snoozer has been amazingly kind and understanding of me.

PC.  As I have read some of the posts of this thread there is something blatantly missing.  We must also realize that any person that is involved in supporting gay marriage cannot be considered a unprejudiced lawyer or judge for any citizen opposed to gay marriage in a court of law.   When political correctness becomes included in the law - of necessity the law becomes prejudiced and biased. 

there is a story about a couple that were driving around a neighborhood in Utah that they were thinking of moving into.  They saw a gentleman working in his yard and decided to talk to him.  The asked the man what the ward was like.  The man looked at the couple and asked them about their current ward.  The couple said that their current ward was full of backbiting, gossipers and complainers - they had to move.  The man sadly replied that they best not move into his ward because they will just find more of the same. 
 
A few days later another couple checking out the neighborhood stopped to take to the same man and asked the same question.  The man again asked what their ward was like.  They said that their current ward was wonderful and such a loving and caring ward that they are sad to leave.  The man said that his ward was the perfect ward for them to move to because they would find a loving and caring ward just like the one they were leaving.
 
Moral of this post.  In my experience (with some very little exception) what most people find in their ward is a reflection of themselves more than what is going on in their ward.

Let’s take a quick look at a few things.  First I would point out that throughout the Old Testament there was no such thing as celibacy being part of dedicating one’s self to G-d.  In fact it is quite the opposite.  Marriage was considered an integral part of dedicating one’s self to G-d and the service of G-d.
 
The second point.  At the time of Jesus the tradition of marriage was still an integral part of clergy dedicating themselves to Priestly service and given in the example of Zechariah (also mentioned in the Quran).  The historical norm for those in divine service was to be married throughout the period covered in scripture for both the Old and New Testament.
 
Third point.  Paul tells us in his book of Hebrews that Jesus was an ordained minister of the priesthood and specifically that Jesus was ordained a High Priest in the priestly order of Melchizedek.  This is an ancient order dating back at least to the time of Abraham and an order of priesthood that did not practice celibacy.  But there is more to this point because Paul was not a Christian when this ordination of Jesus to the priesthood took place.  The only way that Paul would have known this, is if it was generally known and taught among the first Christians.  However the specifics of Jesus being ordained a High Priest are missing in our current Christian canon of Scripture.  Meaning that critical information once very much part of the landscape of Christian knowledge specific to the life of Jesus is now completely missing and lost.
 
Forth point.  A very important historian, Flavius Josephus gives us insight into the Middle Eastern landscape and tradition of the time and place of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity.  At the time we learn that early Christianity was considered a variant of Judaism (not a separate religion) and in all of Josephus’ writing he does not distinguish Christianity from main stream Judaism with celibate clergy priests.   This would be especially odd because Josephus specifically wrote because he claimed that there was an effort to change and alter Jewish traditions and understanding of doctrine – including marriage.  One such doctrine concerned the view marriage at the time of the flood of Noah and according to Josephus; changing the “order” of marriage was one of the reasons G-d destroyed the society of man with the flood.  We are left to speculate what is meant by the order of marriage – especially since celibacy was not part of the standard order of anyone in service of G-d in the day of Noah.  Noah being the prime example.
 
I could continue with a litany of reasons that marriage was the norm and standard among the Jews that were dedicated to serving G-d at the time of Jesus.  And that the Pharisees, which would in any way possible attempt to discredit Jesus and his followers – never mentioned Jesus or his followers as practicing celibacy.  Yet they called Jesus Rabbi and Master which would be most odd to have given him such a traditional title had Jesus been celibate. 
 
My final point is that in the discussion of Jesus being married – there is no definitive proof that he was or was not.  This brings us to two problems in this matter.  First is that if the understanding of dedicating one’s self to G-d in the priesthood and specific service was deliberately changed by Jesus or his apostles as no longer the historical norm – one would think that such an important change would be directly addressed by Jesus or his apostles.  But such specific address is conspicuously missing.  But we do find that in many places – mostly among Gnostic Christians that some early Christians believed Jesus to be married – but this is never mentioned by the Apostles as a heresy of the time.  The other important consideration is that those that insist that Jesus was not married and that celibacy was an actual requirement or norm of priestly service and dedication to G-d among the first Christians are left with the burden to prove such a notion – it should not be those that would believe marriage necessary according to the divine and undisputed commandment to multiple and replenish to prove something outside of the norm and historical tradition of the time and place.  And conclusive proof that Jesus was celibate just is not provided anywhere.  This would not be the first time that religious Christian tradition (like the example of an earth centered solar system) was taught as divine doctrine but simply was not true or viable divine doctrine.
 
BTW – do you know what was done anciently to a male make them a eunuch?  I suspect it is not what you think it is.

PC.  As I have read some of the posts of this thread there is something blatantly missing.  We must also realize that any person that is involved in supporting gay marriage cannot be considered a unprejudiced lawyer or judge for any citizen opposed to gay marriage in a court of law.   When political correctness becomes included in the law - of necessity the law becomes prejudiced and biased. 

Snoozer-
 
You really do need to do a bit of research before you start spouting the wisdom of the world.  This took me no more than 10 minutes of searching to find the following talk by Hartman Rector, Jr.
 
Your college degrees have made you believe in the wisdom of the world.  You need filter what you learn through the spirit of discernment and weed out the garbage and wisdom of the world.
 
 

Aussie is right.  I've looked into this quite extensively.  I'm amazed by how many LDS are taken in by the wisdom of the world.  This single cleverest thing Satan has done is to convince the world that he doesn't really exist.  What is so pathetic is that he has also convinced the majority of LDS that al he can do is influence people.  No one really gets possessed, and if they do, it is rare AND that person is inherently evil to begin with.  He has also convinced the LDS that he doesn't do anything to cause illness or death.  All I can say to that is PUH-LEEZE people!  For once, before you start spouting the wisdom of the world, before you close off your minds, do some research in the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church, and other articles.  There are so many references to possession, casting out of evil spirits and devils causing illness that it would literally take hours just to list them all.
 
OK, let's start off with the first instalment about illnesses. 
 
We are taught in church that Satan has power over and can manipulate the elements of this earth.  Some good examples are when Moses had Aaron cast down his staff, turning it into a snake.  Pharaoh's sorcerers did the same thing, and through the power of Satan, their staffs also turned into snakes.  The sorcerers did the same things that Moses subsequently did:  turned water into blood, and created frogs and lice.  (Exodus Ch. 9)
 
Remember what happened to Job?
 
"So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown."  (Job 2:7)
 
Anyone know what causes boils?  According to WebMD, a boil is an infection usually caused by the staphylococcal bacteria.  Hmmm.  Looks to me like Satan can manipulate bacteria as well as a wooden staff, frogs and lice.
 
From Brigham Young:
 
"I have formerly spoken about the spirits overcoming the flesh; the body of flesh, is what the devil has power over.  God gave Lucifer power, influence, mastery, and rule, to a certain extent, to control the life pertaining to the elements composing the body, and the spirit which God places in the body becomes intimately connected with it, and is of course more or less affected by it." (JD 3:277, JD 5:374, JD 7:356)  (Which is why addictions are carried with us after death.)
 
An incident from the life of Joseph Smith:
 
"I will relate one circumstance that took place at Far West, in  a house that Joseph had purchased, which had been formerly occupied as a public house by some wicked people.  A short time after he got into it, one of his children was taken very sick; he laid his hands upon the child, when it got better; as soon as he went out of doors, the child was taken sick again; he gain laid his hands upon it, so that it again recovered.  This occurred several times, when Joseph inquired of the Lord what it all meant; then he had an open vision, and saw the devil in person, who contended with Joseph, face to face, for some time.  he said it was his house, it belonged to him, and Joseph had no right there.  Then Joseph rebuked Satan in the name of the Lord, and he departed and touched the child no more." (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 269-70)
 
From the BYU website, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Pg. 380:
 
"Satan gained power to tempt those who are accountable to do evil, to communicate with individuals to teach them things (usually but not always lies), to possess their bodies, to foster illness and disease, and to cause mortal death."
 
Finally, from Brigham Young:
 
"You never felt a pain and ache, or felt disagreeable, or uncomfortable in your bodies and minds, but what an evil spirit was present causing it.  Do you realize that the ague, the fever, the chills, the severe pain the in the head, the pleurisy, or any pain in the system, from the crown of the head to the soles of the feet, is put there by the devil?  You do not realize this, do you?
I say but little about this matter, because I do not want you to realize it.  When you have the rheumatism, do you realize that the devil put that upon you?  No, but you say, "I got wet, caught cold, and thereby got the rheumatism."  The spirits that afflict us and plant disease in our bodies, pain in the system, and finally death, have control over us so far as the flesh is concerned." (JD 4:133)
 
The reason Satan can plant illness in our bodies is because he can control the elements of the earth and we are created from these same elements.
 
"Those natural elements that make up the physical earth are sometimes referred to in the scriptures as dust.  Thus Adam was created from the dust of the ground meaning the physical body which he received was created from the elements of the earth.  Similarly all men are created from the dust of the earth; that is, the elements organized into a mortal body are assembled together through the birth process."  (Mormon Doctrine, 209)
 
Do I need to go on and on and on and on and on and on and really, really, really, really belabour the point?  I can if you want, but please, do some research on the topic.  I'm not saying that all illnesses are caused by evil spirits.  People do stupid things that make them sick.  People are abused, injured, catch colds, etc., however, in many cases, illness, both mental and physical are caused by evil spirits.

I've got my temple recommend interview soon, and the bishop said that he was very happy with my progress since returning to Church.  Yes I'm hoping to do some temple work, the bishop asked me how it was going with my family history and was pleased to hear that I had done quite a bit work in that regard over the last few months.  He said that it would be a limited recommend but I was so excited I forgot to ask what that meant!  I must sound like some silly teenager with all my excitement!!

Thanks for the advice!  There is a group from my ward going so I will be with people I know who have been to the Temple loads!  When the Bishop mentioned that there was a trip going on that date and asked if I wanted to go he didn't mention anything about a course to do first, found the manuals this afternoon on my tablet so going to read through them over the coming week and put some questions together.  Think some emails are going to be passing between my home teacher and me over the coming days!
Also got my Patriarchal blessing recommend form thing today, just have to arrange for a time to go visit the Patriarch!  Exciting times ahead for me!!

I have to agree with Traveler!
 
The way I see weaknesses is the way that the prophet's and church leaders and my own pondering / observations has lead me to believe. Weaknesses are to be overcome here and that is the testing of our spirits. I feel that is why there are three degrees of Glory and outer darkness.
 
Those that are valiant and become strong by overcoming temptation make the Celestial realm. I really believe that your character is put to the test in this world in order to have eternal laws and ordinances up held in the next. Imagine giving all the powers of the universe and exaltation to someone who could not overcome addictions. This could really throw a spanner in God's works, especially between good and evil.
 
Look how easily led Lucifer was because he was prideful and he only had a spirit body. He was still able to convince 1/3 of all our spirit brothers and sisters to follow him. Just imagine what harm  an exalted addicted weak person could do if they were led astray after gaining exaltation???
 
This is why I know that evil and unclean spirits are about trying to tempt and possess those of us that are weak and addicted. Once addictions become compulsions it is almost impossible to get rid of them because of the unclean and evil spirit component of the addiction. I know that these evil and unclean spirits do not want us to become strong and valiant and receive exaltation.
 
In the Celestial Kingdom we live off Celestial fruit and vegetables to stay exalted (Journal of Discourses). I do know that we have corrupted food, water, air, drugs, Governments, people etc here on the earth. However as LDS we should also have the spirit of discernment to know what is going on around us good and evil. Or at least we should be striving for it. 

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations.
 
Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean?
 
It's interesting though, isn't it?

This is an interesting question and brings up some interesting thoughts. From a certain perspective...not. They can become like our Heavenly Mother. From another perspective, yes, we can all become like Heavenly Father. But this is one specific way in which there has to be a literal difference and women will not become just the same as our Father. Gender is eternal. The Father is male. Women will never be male. So women will never be exactly like Heavenly Father.
 
 
Yes. And no. I will never have dominion over Jesus, for example. God the Father does. We will never have the same dominion as the Father, but we will share in His full Glory. So "all" is an interesting idea in this regard.

As a sister in the Church, I think the other misconception created by this issue is that there is some limitation to one's progress by that separation of roles.  In other words, can women really become like our Heavenly Father or not?  Can women have all that the Father has like it is promised to anyone entering the Celestial Kingdom?  (key word being all)
 
I think the answer to that is that a role doesn't necessarily change the quantity of glory available.  And, I think the way around that is to understand that in the Celestial Kingdom everyone is part of the "one" body. 
 
1 Corinthians 12; "18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."
 
I don't think there is more honour in one role than another when in the Celestial Kingdom as it is shared as one body without schism.  I think one would see herself as the whole while in the Celestial Kingdom and not as an individual, in other words.  In this life, we tend to separate the two, which I believe is what you are saying as well.

I wanted to both allow you to answer and see how you would answer before I responded.  I believe your line of thinking is critical to understanding men and women are different and fulfill different roles - not just in mortality but in eternity.  I believe your observation of a particular phrase enlightens in part that difference.  It is obvious that in creation, especially in the creation of human life - men and women fulfill different and necessary roles.
 
By the nature of creation a woman gives herself (both physically and spiritually) to the creation of human life as she becomes pregnant with child.    Without giving herself in such a manner children could not be created.  But at the same time she should not be alone - thus there is also a role of husband and father that the man needs to take upon himself to take or received the woman unto himself to oversee and provide for her being a mother.
 
The problem is that many see the woman giving herself as being subservient to the man that in taking her and her pregnancy unto himself she becomes less than him.  It seems most obvious to me that a woman cannot give herself in selfishness.  The problem is in understanding the man receiving or taking the woman and child unto himself.  This act of receiving is often seen as selfishness in the role of men but the truth could not be farther from this understanding.   Taking a woman in pregnancy is and ought to be understood as complementary to the unselfishness of the woman and makes the whole of unselfishness greater than the sum of it parts. 
 
But the role of men and women do not suddenly just start when the woman is pregnant but rather is part of the eternal nature of creation which is in the greatness of G-d.  Thus it seems to me that priesthood and the man being ordained to priesthood is an element of the eternal order of G-d.  The priesthood being the means by which manhood and woman hood is fulfilled.  It seems clear to me, concerning righteous and unrighteous dominion that the priesthood is useless to the man that uses priesthood to have unrighteous dominion of women.  Likewise the woman cannot fulfill her giving of herself outside of giving herself to a man that does not honor her and the priesthood through which he receives her.
 
As I understand the priesthood - it is the divine order of G-d.  What I am not sure is if in this life the priesthood is given unto man only as training and preparation for roles that will be such the same or different in eternity.  I am inclined to believe that when we understand the eternal nature of marriage and the eternal roles of giving and receiving as a divine order or G-d - we will understand the priesthood and why men and women have different eternal roles.

I wanted to both allow you to answer and see how you would answer before I responded.  I believe your line of thinking is critical to understanding men and women are different and fulfill different roles - not just in mortality but in eternity.  I believe your observation of a particular phrase enlightens in part that difference.  It is obvious that in creation, especially in the creation of human life - men and women fulfill different and necessary roles.
 
By the nature of creation a woman gives herself (both physically and spiritually) to the creation of human life as she becomes pregnant with child.    Without giving herself in such a manner children could not be created.  But at the same time she should not be alone - thus there is also a role of husband and father that the man needs to take upon himself to take or received the woman unto himself to oversee and provide for her being a mother.
 
The problem is that many see the woman giving herself as being subservient to the man that in taking her and her pregnancy unto himself she becomes less than him.  It seems most obvious to me that a woman cannot give herself in selfishness.  The problem is in understanding the man receiving or taking the woman and child unto himself.  This act of receiving is often seen as selfishness in the role of men but the truth could not be farther from this understanding.   Taking a woman in pregnancy is and ought to be understood as complementary to the unselfishness of the woman and makes the whole of unselfishness greater than the sum of it parts. 
 
But the role of men and women do not suddenly just start when the woman is pregnant but rather is part of the eternal nature of creation which is in the greatness of G-d.  Thus it seems to me that priesthood and the man being ordained to priesthood is an element of the eternal order of G-d.  The priesthood being the means by which manhood and woman hood is fulfilled.  It seems clear to me, concerning righteous and unrighteous dominion that the priesthood is useless to the man that uses priesthood to have unrighteous dominion of women.  Likewise the woman cannot fulfill her giving of herself outside of giving herself to a man that does not honor her and the priesthood through which he receives her.
 
As I understand the priesthood - it is the divine order of G-d.  What I am not sure is if in this life the priesthood is given unto man only as training and preparation for roles that will be such the same or different in eternity.  I am inclined to believe that when we understand the eternal nature of marriage and the eternal roles of giving and receiving as a divine order or G-d - we will understand the priesthood and why men and women have different eternal roles.

I cannot speak to what others have experienced but from my own experience, I would speak to this post and clarify some of I have found to take place concerning my experience with the Holy Ghost and have received revelation of knowledge.  At times of my life I have come to know things to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost.  At the moment of this experience the knowledge was like a vast flood completely overtaking me in my understanding to expanding my comprehension.  But like being overtaken by a flood; some time later I also experienced a "receding" from the vast knowledge that was once very clear to me.  This receding from vast knowledge was not so much doubt as not being able to remember the full extent of my previous insight. 
 
From my experience it would seem that knowledge experienced through the Holy Ghost ebbs and flows in a manner that seem to be directly related to my ability to be connected with the Holy Ghost.  If for whatever reason I continue to remain distant my diminishing comprehension will become doubt and eventually disbelief.  Then should I find myself surrounded again by a flowing of the spirit - I discover again what I knew before.    For me understanding and knowledge is not a constant or a one and done thing but in reality a continual struggle to stay connected.  For this very reason I welcome gathering with other Latter-day Saints on any given Sunday regardless of where I travel and find myself.   I also find benefit in associating with other of honest and compassionate demeanor.   Strangely I find the opposite to also be the case - especially if I allow myself to become angry - anger will cause doubt and confusion to creep in.  For this reason I believe Satan uses such tools to dissuade us from truths that we once enjoyed.

I cannot speak to what others have experienced but from my own experience, I would speak to this post and clarify some of I have found to take place concerning my experience with the Holy Ghost and have received revelation of knowledge.  At times of my life I have come to know things to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost.  At the moment of this experience the knowledge was like a vast flood completely overtaking me in my understanding to expanding my comprehension.  But like being overtaken by a flood; some time later I also experienced a "receding" from the vast knowledge that was once very clear to me.  This receding from vast knowledge was not so much doubt as not being able to remember the full extent of my previous insight. 
 
From my experience it would seem that knowledge experienced through the Holy Ghost ebbs and flows in a manner that seem to be directly related to my ability to be connected with the Holy Ghost.  If for whatever reason I continue to remain distant my diminishing comprehension will become doubt and eventually disbelief.  Then should I find myself surrounded again by a flowing of the spirit - I discover again what I knew before.    For me understanding and knowledge is not a constant or a one and done thing but in reality a continual struggle to stay connected.  For this very reason I welcome gathering with other Latter-day Saints on any given Sunday regardless of where I travel and find myself.   I also find benefit in associating with other of honest and compassionate demeanor.   Strangely I find the opposite to also be the case - especially if I allow myself to become angry - anger will cause doubt and confusion to creep in.  For this reason I believe Satan uses such tools to dissuade us from truths that we once enjoyed.