Men And Women Were Created To Complement One Another

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm one of those "it's in if it doesn't contradict the canon." B)

[MaidservantX]

You know this is a good thing to think about, as Susie brought up: men and women were created to complement one another.

I have thought about the purpose of men and women in mortal probation and in eternity a great deal; as individuals and as a unit with the two of them. I have thought a lot about this because of the failures I experience as an individual woman, and in my attempts to be part of a unit with man.

But through the failures, I have received glimpses of insight, at least to be a blessing to me personally. One thing I see is that men are the roots that women need so that women can fly. Yeah, yeah, I know that's a sappy Hallmark card . Women are the individuals that have a great inclination, drive and calling to change and create their homes and their communities. But they need to be fed to be able to do this, and their source, their vine of which they are the branch, is the man/ husband in their life that loves her unconditionally so that she can truly be who she is and unfold her purpose. I have noticed that, since my hubby passed away, Heavenly Father has sent a few wonderful men into my life who are able to love me -- friends, relatives, even my boss (who is a relative) -- so that I feel peaceful and can do what I need to accomplish in my life as it relates to my children and to the community beyond my children. Thank you to men!! and particularly the special ones in my life!!

[Alaskagain]

You know this is a good thing to think about, as Susie brought up: men and women were created to complement one another.

Reminds me of an old joke.

Husband: "They make the perfect couple!"

Wife: "Why do you say that?"

Husband: "The holes in his head match the rocks in hers!"

In a marriage, the partners are given the opportunity to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Looking past the roles of husband/father - wife/mother, and more into the personal traits, it can be very challenging.

In temporal areas, the wife is neat, the husband is sloppy - the wife teaches the husband to be neat (in a loving way, of course). Or vice versa, and they learn to keep the house neat together. When both going into the marriage are already neat, their household will always be tidy. The husband budgets and is good with money, the wife is a spendthrift - the husband teaches the wife to manage money better (in a loving way, of course). Or vice versa, and they learn to pay tithing, go over the bills and balance the bank statements together. When both are budget-conscious from the beginning of the marriage, they will always have emergency funds available. Sometimes it's really easier to say "Here, you take care of the banking (or whatever), and I'll take care of the vaccuuming (or whatever), and then we won't argue (discuss in a loving way) anymore!" I wonder if that is the best solution? As long as the person in charge of vaccuuming never resents being the one doing ALL the vaccuuming ALL the time, it provides functionality in the home, that is to be sure.

But if we are to truly complement each other, shouldn't we want to learn and share in and emulate the best attributes of the other person? (Considering not just household management tasks, but also spiritual qualities.)

Then again, I suppose there are those spouses who are just plain untrainable in some areas, and look forward to that day when we are made perfect, and our longsuffering will have been worth it.

[the Ogre]

I prefer not to attack individuals but to develop an open dialogue with reasonable individuals.

Great. But you do realize that "dialogue" requires more than a testimony, right?

That might be so, but it also takes being more than a ideologue to sustain a dialogue, too.

That chaps my hide.

Get some lotion.

[the Ogre]

Words are only scripture that are canonized. Mormon apologists, BYU professors, and General Authorities may sometimes say that all good words inspired by the Holy Ghost are scripture, but when someone quotes something as Mormon doctrine that is not in the Standard Works, it's immediately denied because it's not "scripture".

You can't have it both ways. It's either in, or it's out.

This for me is an example of when Jason is approaching the truth. Mormons apologists and BYU/CES instructors/professors can not be counted on to be inspired regarding the truthfulness of their statements when they are relying on the work of other men for their message unless those men they are quoting are included in the accepted canon (Paul, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, The S-vior, Moses et al.).

However, I do not extend this qualification to general authorities. The statements of GBH is scripture for our time. I do not think all the thinking for the church is done by the brethren nor do I think once they have said something need we stop thinking about the topic, but what the twelve and in particular the sitting prophet is scripture.

If one is to believe in modern revelation, then one has to realize that the modern prophets, in the fulfillment of their posts, are authorized to give revelation that is intended to be counted as scripture. So this in mind, I do think that some of the work of President Hinckley will be included as canonized work, but if not, I will not feel bad nor will I despair. Love him or hate him, he is the prophet of our time.

But the thoughtful works of the apologists I can spurn and bemoan, who are they but other men (or maybe those who would be LDS practitioners of priestcraft trying to get gain from the word of the L-rd and notoriety)? What of the errant words of some GAs now dead that the church has carefully and artfully directed the church from (Paul H. Dunn and others like him)? Great. That is another reason for modern revelation and inspired leadership.

[MaidservantX]

<div class='quotemain'>

You know this is a good thing to think about, as Susie brought up: men and women were created to complement one another.

Reminds me of an old joke.

Husband: "They make the perfect couple!"

Wife: "Why do you say that?"

Husband: "The holes in his head match the rocks in hers!"

In a marriage, the partners are given the opportunity to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Looking past the roles of husband/father - wife/mother, and more into the personal traits, it can be very challenging.

In temporal areas, the wife is neat, the husband is sloppy - the wife teaches the husband to be neat (in a loving way, of course). Or vice versa, and they learn to keep the house neat together. When both going into the marriage are already neat, their household will always be tidy. The husband budgets and is good with money, the wife is a spendthrift - the husband teaches the wife to manage money better (in a loving way, of course). Or vice versa, and they learn to pay tithing, go over the bills and balance the bank statements together. When both are budget-conscious from the beginning of the marriage, they will always have emergency funds available. Sometimes it's really easier to say "Here, you take care of the banking (or whatever), and I'll take care of the vaccuuming (or whatever), and then we won't argue (discuss in a loving way) anymore!" I wonder if that is the best solution? As long as the person in charge of vaccuuming never resents being the one doing ALL the vaccuuming ALL the time, it provides functionality in the home, that is to be sure.

But if we are to truly complement each other, shouldn't we want to learn and share in and emulate the best attributes of the other person? (Considering not just household management tasks, but also spiritual qualities.)

Then again, I suppose there are those spouses who are just plain untrainable in some areas, and look forward to that day when we are made perfect, and our longsuffering will have been worth it.

I loved what you had to say -- good idea, good way we should all look at it.

Funny joke, too!

[Doctor Steuss]

Maybe you should read what else St. Paul said in 1 Cor.:

"I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I."

Apparently one can be an Apostle, and destined for exaltation, and not be married.

He also said:

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment." (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)

I think some evidence points to Paul being widowed. In any case, I'll take G-d's words over Paul's (Gen 2:24 -- which interestingly can be interpreted to mean there is a "Heavenly Mother")... or maybe I'll listen to Christ (Matt 19 [too lazy to find the verse(s)])

[Doctor Steuss]

I think some evidence points to Paul being widowed. In any case, I'll take G-d's words over Paul's (Gen 2:24 -- which interestingly can be interpreted to mean there is a "Heavenly Mother")... or maybe I'll listen to Christ (Matt 19 [too lazy to find the verse(s)])

A little tid-bit on Paul. Ignatius lists him amongst the men of G-d that were married:

Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind.

(Ignatius, Epistles of Ignatius)

Also, in 2 - Philippians 4:1-3

1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In verse 3, Paul may be addressing his wife. The Greek suzugos tends to give credence to this line of thought, IMO. In the Matthew 19 verse I was too lazy to look up earlier (6), the Greek word suzeugnumi is what is translated as "hath joined together."

Also, we have:

Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.

"Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

(Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius of Caesarea))

Which is a reference to this:

Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused.

(Clement’s Stromata, Book III, Chapter VI, 53)

A good portion of the above research is courtesy of yet another one of my little online friends, "T-Shirt" (always like to give credit where it's due).

[Jason]

Good info there. Never knew the Father's said Paul was married.

But why would you presume that Genesis was god's word, and not Paul's? In other words, what gives you the confidence that Genesis is more inspired than Paul?

[Doctor Steuss]

Good info there. Never knew the Father's said Paul was married.

But why would you presume that Genesis was god's word, and not Paul's?

At first, I laughed at this and was ready to flippantly respond: "When was Paul born?" But, then I read your clarification:

In other words, what gives you the confidence that Genesis is more inspired than Paul?

I don't hold ecclesiastical epistles written by a man that never personally knew Christ in the same regard as the Torah.

Call me crazy.

Then again, I don't hold the Torah to be infallible either (after all of the redactors, scribes and the revisions brought about by the Deuteronomists, there's a considerable amount of politics and mythology mixed in with the divine).

[Jason]

You're crazy.

Then again, I personally loath the Old Testament minus the Psalms and Proverbs. But I don't care much for St Paul's works either. I like the Gospels. :)

<div class='quotemain'>

Good info there. Never knew the Father's said Paul was married.

But why would you presume that Genesis was god's word, and not Paul's?

At first, I laughed at this and was ready to flippantly respond: "When was Paul born?" But, then I read your clarification:

In other words, what gives you the confidence that Genesis is more inspired than Paul?

I don't hold ecclesiastical epistles written by a man that never personally knew Christ in the same regard as the Torah.

Call me crazy.

Then again, I don't hold the Torah to be infallible either (after all of the redactors, scribes and the revisions brought about by the Deuteronomists, there's a considerable amount of politics and mythology mixed in with the divine).

[Doctor Steuss]

You're crazy.

Then again, I personally loath the Old Testament minus the Psalms and Proverbs. But I don't care much for St Paul's works either. I like the Gospels. :)

My opinion of Paul is definitely subject to change. I have a book sitting on my shelf that I'll get around to one of these days titled "Paul's Life and Letters" by Tvetdnes (sp?). Maybe it will help me see the light that many within Protestant Christianity see... Then again, maybe it will just end up making me like Peter.

That's too bad you loath the OT. I just can't seem to get enough of it. It's funny how certain things speak to us. I once took a little survey on Beliefnet that said I was 98% Orthodox Jew. I was only 70% LDS in my beliefs.

[Jason]

That's too bad you loath the OT. I just can't seem to get enough of it. It's funny how certain things speak to us. I once took a little survey on Beliefnet that said I was 98% Orthodox Jew. I was only 70% LDS in my beliefs.

I'd be a Canaanite before I'd be a Jew. I prefer to be more tolerant of the beliefs of others.

To me, Judaism and Christianity are as far opposed as Buddhism and Hinduism. It irritates me to no end that Evangelical Christians have succeeded in incorporating the phrase "Judeo-Christian" into our vocabulary. For me, the Message of the Christ is totally incompatible with Judaism.

[CrimsonKairos]

I always took "Judeo-Christian" to simply refer to the heritage we inherited from the OT (Judaism) and the NT (Christianity). What do you think it means?

[Doctor Steuss]

For me, the Message of the Christ is totally incompatible with Judaism.

Depends on what jumps out on the pages. To me on some days, there is intolerance in the actual message of Christ, and there is the love of G-d in Judaism.

Also, don't forget that Christ was a practicing Jew (fulfilling the law required that He live it [although there were some aspects He didn't live which I tend to think were added by Josiah's reform]).

I have seen far more intolerance spring from "Christianity" than from "Judaism." But, that's just anecdotal in the end so...

[Jason]

I always took "Judeo-Christian" to simply refer to the heritage we inherited from the OT (Judaism) and the NT (Christianity). What do you think it means?

I think it's a buzz phrase designed by Zionists to con us into believing we're all basically the same in belief. Keeps us proping up the State of Israel with our billions of dollars per annum in welfare support, without much complaint from the tax payers.

I'm anti-Zionist. I think we should dismantle the state of Israel, and return governmental control to Palestinians (with appropriate safe-guards for the Jews now living there).

I have seen far more intolerance spring from "Christianity" than from "Judaism." But, that's just anecdotal in the end so...

Sure. I'm not talking about actual praxis in today's world. I'm talking about the words on the pages.

[Doctor Steuss]

Sure. I'm not talking about actual praxis in today's world. I'm talking about the words on the pages.

Ah, I see. Kind of like calling a woman a dog solely because of her nationality?

Kidding.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

[CrimsonKairos]

Keeps us proping up the State of Israel with our billions of dollars per annum in welfare support, without much complaint from the tax payers.

Operation Nickel Grass, all the way baby!!!

Long live Israel! B)

[Gaia]

Gems on the Family

Men and Women Were Created to Complement One Another

---------------------------------------------------

"In His grand design, when God first created man, He created a duality

of the sexes. The ennobling expression of that duality is found in

marriage. One individual is complementary to the other. As Paul stated,

'Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the

man, in the Lord' (1 Corinthians 11:11).

"There is no other

arrangement that meets the divine purposes of the Almighty. Man and woman

are His creations. Their duality is His design. Their complementary

relationships and functions are fundamental to His purposes. One is

incomplete without the other."

Topics: Marriage

(Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Women in Our Lives," Ensign, Nov. 2004, 84)

GAIA:

Hello --

I'd like to (respectfully) suggest a potential problem that can develop with this view --

It can become PROSCRIPTIVE rather than DESCRIPTIVE.

By that i mean, that often, we take the idea that "the sexes do sometimes in some ways complement each other" to mean that "the sexes SHOULD complement each other"--

And then, we devise sex role stereotypes that ENSURE that the sexes will be complementary, rather than allowing people to express their individuality.

So sometimes, we INSIST that -- for example -- a man "should" be independent, and a woman "should" be dependent; a man "should" be authoritative, and a woman should not be -- or should accept the man's authority.

There was a study done several years ago, which had a group of "helping professionals" -- people like counselors, ministers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, social workers, police, etc -- make three lists:

he first was to be a list of qualities of a healthy, sucessful human being.

The second was to be a list of the qualities of a "normal" man.

The third was to be a list of the qualities of a "normal" woman.

What do you suppose were the results of this test?

The qualities of a healthy, sucessful human being included such things as:

- independent

- logical

- rational

- authoritative

- assertive

- forceful

- brave

- adventurous

- clever

- confident

- self-assured

- risk-taker

- fearless

- emphatic

The qualities of a normal, healthy man included:

- - independent

- logical

- rational

- authoritative

- assertive

- forceful

- self-assured

- brave

- adventurous

- confident

- risk-taker

- fearless

- emphatic

The qualities of a normal, healthy WOMAN included:

- dependent

- emotional

- intuitive

- tactful

- modest,

- sensitive,

- cautious

- careful

- shy

-

NOw notice: The qualities of a HEALTHY adult and a healthy, normal man were virtually the same; and they were the OPPOSITE of the qualities considered "normal" for women --

Thus, women in our culture have to make a damnable choice: Either they have to develop the qualities considered UNHEATHY and ABNORMAL for a human being to be acceptable as a female;

OR they have to buck the prevailing stereotypes of a "normal female" by developing the qualities considered healthy for human beings!

-- And the final irony is that these attitudes were not those of an uneducated or irrelevant group of people; these were well-educated EXPERTS in helping professions that are generally the ones we look to for help and guidance in our lives!

I think:

a) We need to examine just how healthy and appropriate our stereotypes and expectations are, and whether they really serve or damage us;

B) We need to be very careful that our ideas of "the way things are" don't become PROSCRIPTIVE, burdensome, or damaging --

c) And we need to remember that human beings are widely diverse, independent, and individualistic -- and that is generally a good thing!

Blessings --

~Gaia

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't think Pres. Hinckley's quote had anything to do with what you're getting into, gaia.

Men and women complement each other. Generally (notice the qualifier) men are better suited to physical labor, and women are better suited to nurturing children and bringing emotional maturity to situations.

I always crack up when I see women wearing shoulder-pads and high heels...gotta' look like the man.

Men and women are different. Period. What's wrong with pointing that out? Pres. Hinckley didn't say anything about women needing to be dependent or anything silly like that.

[onyx]

Yeah, most of my questions are rhetorical. That said, I don't like people putting forth "answers" that have no defense outside of a "feeling," and then when these same "answers" are refuted with textual information, being told that I'm of the devil.

That chaps my hide.

Hi Jason,

I'm just wondering why you placed a link to the Liberal Catholic Church International Website in your response?

[Gaia]

I don't think Pres. Hinckley's quote had anything to do with what you're getting into, gaia.

Men and women complement each other. Generally (notice the qualifier) men are better suited to physical labor, and women are better suited to nurturing children and bringing emotional maturity to situations.

I always crack up when I see women wearing shoulder-pads and high heels...gotta' look like the man.

Men and women are different. Period. What's wrong with pointing that out? Pres. Hinckley didn't say anything about women needing to be dependent or anything silly like that.

GAIA:

HI there, Crimson --

Regarding nurturing: I think most people would agree that children need nurturing from BOTH Mothers AND Fathers.

And actually, men are no less innately suited to nurture than women; they have simply been less acculturated/ trained to learn HOW to nurture.

For example, there are cultures in which the males do the nurturing and the females go off to do the hunting. In fact, there are cultures in which males have the responsibility to nurse the babies while "Mom" is away. Since the mammary glands are primarily activated through stimulation, men can train their breasts to give milk. So biologically, men are no less equipped to be nurturers; it's our culture which has assigned them a different sex-role stereotype.

And re: Shoulder pads and high heels -

They have nothing to do with "looking like a man"; in fact, they have to do with giving women a MORE (not less) hour-glass shape.

For most women, shoulder pads help create or emphasize a more "hourglass" shape, with the upper torso and lower torso (bust and hips) comprising the larger parts of the hourglass, and the waist comprising the "cinched'in" part.

The high heels actually affect women's posture: They thrust the hips and rear end outward, and emphasize the muscles of the calf --- aagin, emphasizing the FEMININE shape that is preferred by our culture. It has nothing to do with making women more masculine -- in fact, just the opposite.

And again: What's "wrong" with it is when it becomes rigidly PROSCRIPTIVE -- a demand for how people "should" be, and when people are punished in various way for deviating from that norm, rather than descriptive of the way (*some*) people are.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yeah, most of my questions are rhetorical. That said, I don't like people putting forth "answers" that have no defense outside of a "feeling," and then when these same "answers" are refuted with textual information, being told that I'm of the devil.

That chaps my hide.

Hi Jason,

I'm just wondering why you placed a link to the Liberal Catholic Church International Website in your response?

I didn't. I have a link to my Parish website, and it's in my signature line, not in the post.

[Gaia]

I always took "Judeo-Christian" to simply refer to the heritage we inherited from the OT (Judaism) and the NT (Christianity). What do you think it means?

GAIA:

It is interesting to note that Jews almost never use the term; it's almost always used by (conservative) Christians.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

I always took "Judeo-Christian" to simply refer to the heritage we inherited from the OT (Judaism) and the NT (Christianity). What do you think it means?

GAIA:

It is interesting to note that Jews almost never use the term; it's almost always used by (conservative) Christians.

Minor correction: "Conservative Evangelical Christians".