Mormon Studies

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 21 2005, 02:53 PM

It seems that you're relying on the "arm of flesh", or certain people who say certain things and assure you of certain things because they believe those things to be true, while I am relying totally upon God and my assurances from Him.

We'll both see who is right in the end, though, shan't we. :)

←

Better the "arm of flesh" than the "imaginary friend". B)

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 21 2005, 03:01 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 21 2005, 02:53 PM

It seems that you're relying on the "arm of flesh", or certain people who say certain things and assure you of certain things because they believe those things to be true, while I am relying totally upon God and my assurances from Him.

We'll both see who is right in the end, though, shan't we. :)

←

Better the "arm of flesh" than the "imaginary friend". B)

←

I am truly sorry you have never had any chance to entertain the Lord... He is awesome... and no where close to imaginary...

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Oct 21 2005, 06:56 PM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 21 2005, 03:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 21 2005, 02:53 PM

It seems that you're relying on the "arm of flesh", or certain people who say certain things and assure you of certain things because they believe those things to be true, while I am relying totally upon God and my assurances from Him.

We'll both see who is right in the end, though, shan't we. :)

←

Better the "arm of flesh" than the "imaginary friend". B)

←

I am truly sorry you have never had any chance to entertain the Lord... He is awesome... and no where close to imaginary...

←

Like I've said before Please...anytime he's over at your place, just give me a call and I'd be happy to meet him.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 21 2005, 03:32 PM

Back up a bit.  You missed the point.  Let me restate it in small words: There was no apostasy, because there was no one, single true church, ever. 

Get it? 

Conceptually? Yes. Otherwise it's gibberish.

Priestcraft need not be based solely on money.  But maybe you've never heard of that word before?  Here's a definition for you.

←

Just a word of advice Jason...talking down to people isn't the best way to convince someone of something.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 21 2005, 07:19 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Oct 21 2005, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 21 2005, 03:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 21 2005, 02:53 PM

It seems that you're relying on the "arm of flesh", or certain people who say certain things and assure you of certain things because they believe those things to be true, while I am relying totally upon God and my assurances from Him.

We'll both see who is right in the end, though, shan't we. :)

←

Better the "arm of flesh" than the "imaginary friend". B)

←

I am truly sorry you have never had any chance to entertain the Lord... He is awesome... and no where close to imaginary...

←

Like I've said before Please...anytime he's over at your place, just give me a call and I'd be happy to meet him.

←

Your flip attitude is only a cover... as if you are ignorant of The Lord and His ways... It is necessary to have the Holy Ghost in order to have Christ meet with you... and no unclean thing can have the Holy Ghost. But I know you know this.... your knowledge will condemn you Jason... no matter how hard you rebel... you will only confirm your knowlege and your fate more surely....

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please@Oct 21 2005, 08:57 PM

Your flip attitude is only a cover... as if you are ignorant of The Lord and His ways...

You're god's ways are not the Creator's way.

It is necessary to have the Holy Ghost in order to have Christ meet with you...

Well then invite them both at the same time. I'll bring the wine.

and no unclean thing can have the Holy Ghost. 

What do you think I am? A pig? I'll shower first...promise.

But I know you know this.... your knowledge will condemn you Jason... no matter how hard you rebel... you will only confirm your knowlege and your fate more surely....

←

Oh I know what you know. What Im hoping is that someday you'll know as much as I do and we can both laugh together about all of this.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Jason,Oct 22 2005, 11:58 AM]

Oh I know what you know.  What Im hoping is that someday you'll know as much as I do and we can both laugh together about all of this.

←

Surely you can't think I don't know what you know... and that you know what I know... or you would be where I am...

and you aren't but yet may be... someday soon...

and we probably won't be laughing... but still very much loving each other...

[Guest Ajax]

Jason,Oct 22 2005, 11:58 AM]

Oh I know what you know.  What Im hoping is that someday you'll know as much as I do and we can both laugh together about all of this.

<div align="right">←

Surely you can't think I don't know what you know... and that you know what I know... or you would be where I am...

and you aren't but yet may be... someday soon...

and we probably won't be laughing... but still very much loving each other...

October 2005? Isn't this a very old thread?

[prisonchaplain]

She also talked about early female leadership in ancient Christianity which was much more involved than I previously thought. I have to do some research but apparently Paul talked about a Junia (female) who was foremost among the apostles???

Junia is a rather controversial figure--especially within those church tradition that limit the role of women in leadership. However, you might find it interesting that my very conservative fellowship is rather progressive on this particular issue.

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/...en_ministry.cfm

[MaidservantX]

Here are just some thoughts that I have had.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is headed by Jesus Christ, we term that any power and authority we receive from Jesus Christ, through organized stewardships or lines of authority -- we term it priesthood. We have an idea that this priesthood is more ancient than even Jesus Christ himself and more ancient than the creation of the earth and world; that it is eternal. It is called the Order after the Son of God -- or something similar, I apologize for any fudging on that. But as for this earth, Christianity as it presented itself (true or apostate) in the 'meridian of time' (Jesus' mortal life) is only a recent chapter. Our priesthood, doctrine and spiritual heritage begins (earthly) with Adam.

In this age, of course, the Church of Jesus Christ does not trace their authority to any practices that took place in Jesus' mortal life and ministry. They trace it to the moment when Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and in the case of the actual transfer of priesthood keys, in the laying on of hands in two meetings: Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith receiving from John (the Baptist) and from Peter, James and John (considered by LDS to have been the First Presidency in the meridian of time in the organization then -- so there's the connection after all; but it still doesn't rely on historical report; it relies on first hand report in the persons of Peter, James and John).

Every thing (" ") done in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is done through priesthood authority and power, including the acts done in the church by women. When a woman goes visiting teaching, she has a priesthood delegation to do so. Otherwise, she would have no authority (or power) to do her visiting teaching. This is includes the idea that when a woman goes visiting teaching, she is representing Jesus Christ to those sisters she visits, teaches and serves. We use the word 'hold'. We say that men 'hold' the priesthood and that women do not 'hold' the priesthood. Women do not 'hold' priesthood keys. At least this is so in the church. I attend the temple, but I am still pondering all that I learn and experience there. But when a woman is in any calling in the church, and women as mothers and wives -- all of these acts, authorities and powers are based in the priesthood. I am not saying that this means we can start laying on of hands of mother's blessings or that young women should be blessing the sacrament. These things are not authorized, and I personally don't have any imagination that they will, nor do I feel deprived by this. What I am saying is that the acts that are authorized for women-- everything from Relief Society Presidents to speaking in church to proselyting on missions to temple officiating to guiding their families -- what is authorized for women, specifically and or generally, is authorized by priesthood and priesthood power flows to and through women in these acts; what is the famous quote: (I'm probably fudging this, too) Priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God. Women are sent on these very sorts of errands and with this very same authority.

[rosie321]

Crazy thoughts?

Looking at the thoughts quoted below and considering the female priesthood issue, could the answer become clearer by going back to the origional curse explained in Genesis? Eve is told that her desire will be towards her husband and that he will rule over her.

Looking at it from the idea of priesthood the way that the LDS church sees it, is that men (husbands) hold the priesthood. The women seek the blessings through it. (which in the LDS church becomes through the man, ultimately, since he hold the powers to do the ordinances). But she bears the priesthood also, in a sense, as she becomes "one" with her husband in the priesthood. She recieves the abilities and priviledges through the worthy priesthood holder here on earth to accomplish her duties. So nothing is withheld from her. She does get the priveledges of the priesthood and is called to do many priestlike things. Only she does have to go through the man, who does in a way rule over her?

- Strong women are seen throughout scriptures doing many great things for the gospels sake yet I don't really see anywhere where they have the power to perform the traditional "gospel ordinances" on their own.

-The church provides for the case of the women without the priestholding husband. They are not denied priesthood blessings as another male priesthood holder is readily available through its structure by which women can go through to recieve the same blessing as the married counterpart. But even the unmarried must go through the priesthood.

-On the same train of thought was it really ever God's intent for men to rule over women or will that part of the curse be resolved in the hereafter?

Here are just some thoughts that I have had.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is headed by Jesus Christ, we term that any power and authority we receive from Jesus Christ, through organized stewardships or lines of authority -- we term it priesthood. We have an idea that this priesthood is more ancient than even Jesus Christ himself and more ancient than the creation of the earth and world; that it is eternal. It is called the Order after the Son of God -- or something similar, I apologize for any fudging on that. But as for this earth, Christianity as it presented itself (true or apostate) in the 'meridian of time' (Jesus' mortal life) is only a recent chapter. Our priesthood, doctrine and spiritual heritage begins (earthly) with Adam.

In this age, of course, the Church of Jesus Christ does not trace their authority to any practices that took place in Jesus' mortal life and ministry. They trace it to the moment when Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and in the case of the actual transfer of priesthood keys, in the laying on of hands in two meetings: Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith receiving from John (the Baptist) and from Peter, James and John (considered by LDS to have been the First Presidency in the meridian of time in the organization then -- so there's the connection after all; but it still doesn't rely on historical report; it relies on first hand report in the persons of Peter, James and John).

Every thing (" ") done in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is done through priesthood authority and power, including the acts done in the church by women. When a woman goes visiting teaching, she has a priesthood delegation to do so. Otherwise, she would have no authority (or power) to do her visiting teaching. This is includes the idea that when a woman goes visiting teaching, she is representing Jesus Christ to those sisters she visits, teaches and serves. We use the word 'hold'. We say that men 'hold' the priesthood and that women do not 'hold' the priesthood. Women do not 'hold' priesthood keys. At least this is so in the church. I attend the temple, but I am still pondering all that I learn and experience there. But when a woman is in any calling in the church, and women as mothers and wives -- all of these acts, authorities and powers are based in the priesthood. I am not saying that this means we can start laying on of hands of mother's blessings or that young women should be blessing the sacrament. These things are not authorized, and I personally don't have any imagination that they will, nor do I feel deprived by this. What I am saying is that the acts that are authorized for women-- everything from Relief Society Presidents to speaking in church to proselyting on missions to temple officiating to guiding their families -- what is authorized for women, specifically and or generally, is authorized by priesthood and priesthood power flows to and through women in these acts; what is the famous quote: (I'm probably fudging this, too) Priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God. Women are sent on these very sorts of errands and with this very same authority.

[Outshined]

Weird how a 15-month-old thread can come back to life...

[prisonchaplain]

Looking at the thoughts quoted below and considering the female priesthood issue, could the answer become clearer by going back to the origional curse explained in Genesis? Eve is told that her desire will be towards her husband and that he will rule over her.

There is an argument that suggests we are no longer under the curse, since we have been "redeemed by the blood of the Lamb," (i.e. Jesus has made us right before the Heavenly Father). Since the curse is removed, since we are "in the world but not of it," we would not be bound the alleged curse that women would be subjugated to their husbands.

Of course, another argument, is that the whole "male-headship" school, that seeks to define the curse of Genesis 3 as a God-given command for men to lead, women to serve, is a gross over-reading of the passage.

In practice, there are plenty of opportunities for women to "lead" in the COJCLDS, aren't there?

Weird how a 15-month-old thread can come back to life...

Somebody commented that it was an old thread, and I commented on the last post with content, without looking at the date. mea culpa.

[Outshined]

Oh, it isn't a problem, PC. I was just commenting on how a thread can sit for a while and then BAM spring back to life. B)

Any thread that still has conversational value to members is never wasted...

[rosie321]

In practice, there are plenty of opportunities for women to "lead" in the COJCLDS, aren't there?

Yes, but the leading opportunities are through priesthood holders and still overseen by them. The Relief Society, one of the major places for womans leadership, is still under direction of priesthood authority.

There is an argument that suggests we are no longer under the curse, since we have been "redeemed by the blood of the Lamb," (i.e. Jesus has made us right before the Heavenly Father). Since the curse is removed, since we are "in the world but not of it," we would not be bound the alleged curse that women would be subjugated to their husbands.

I agree. The closer one gets to God and oneness the less people would even be thinking about the curse but the oneness that comes through the lamb. Its not man vs woman but doing whats right. The husband (leaders) would be loving his wife as christ loved the church and the wife would be working towards promoting gospel principles so it would all blend together. The focus would not be on the curse. The women was considered one by God in the joining together (the two shall be one). So I think even God did not view a woman as less or else he would have said 11/2 or someother fractional amount for the women.

Of course, another argument, is that the whole "male-headship" school, that seeks to define the curse of Genesis 3 as a God-given command for men to lead, women to serve, is a gross over-reading of the passage.

I agree with you for the most part. It has been taken out of context. Some men use it to justify their arrogant dictatorship. In view of the gospel though it doesn't have to be that extreme. But if ordinances were given to men-some believe they were given the priesthood to enable them to be humbled and have a part in the kingdom in a way that would reach them and women were given the power of procreation and nurturing something men cannot do (without some serious outside interventions ) The women still does have to go through the man for those necessary ordinances. So in a sense she does ultimately have to go to the husband or man for the completion of those ordinances necessary for salvation. She is always subjected to him to some degree here on earth. For even to be able to procreate, she still takes something from the man:) But for him, the priesthood has been given with nothing needed from the woman.