women as Sunday school presidents and men as primary presidents ?

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

It's far too common for people  - myself included sadly - to conceals one's doubts (and so never deal with them) or muffle one's conscience when we view everything in absolute terms.  

Conscience? A loaded term when one applied the common-to-our-day relative morality principle to things.

[The Folk Prophet]

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think that integrated Primary presidencies are hypothetically possible and may even happen at some point; but I can also visualize situations where priesthood-holding counselors tried to explicitly or implicitly “pull rank” on female presidents, creating some really funky dynamics.  Plus, lots of units are already strapped for males to fill priesthood leadership positions.  Sunday school presidencies, I can also visualize either integrating or brought under the auspices of the Relief Society at some point; but with similar challenges.

To what end? 

[The Folk Prophet]

18 hours ago, laronius said:

I think you would agree @Lehite that God is not sexist.

That really depends on what criteria one uses to define what it means to be a sexist.

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Conscience? A loaded term when one applied the common-to-our-day relative morality principle to things.

Thank-you. 

Curious - what else do you feel we really have?  Someone else's conscience that they insist is the truth (and may, or may not, be)?  

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you. 

Curious - what else do you feel we really have?  Someone else's conscience that they insist is the truth (and may, or may not, be)?  

Prophets. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

Equal doesn't mean and never has meant same.

While I heartily agree with the thrust of what you're saying, I disagree with the above sentence. Equal does in fact mean same. I believe the whole discussion of "Are men and women equal?" is doomed to failure because of this. Of course they are not "equal"! They're fundamentally different!

Now, if you're asking if men and women are of equal value in the eyes of God, then I assume the answer is yes. But again, equal means same. Men and women hold the same value in God's eyes. In that sense, they are absolutely equal. And in the eyes of the law, they are (or at least should be) absolutely equal. There should be no legal favoritism based on sex (or race or religion or...). And yet again, that equality means sameness. The law should not care or even look at the defendant's (or victim's) sex.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

Yeap, it's the "new" age of enlightenment.  God bless us because we are so, so much better than those racists, misogynist pigs who lived in the past.  We are the best that have every lived-no one in the past has ever had the knowledge that we do to look upon the "wisdom of the ages" and spit upon them.  Thank you God b/c we are so great!!!

^^ This ^^

[lostinwater]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Prophets. 

Thank-you.

i respect that.  i guess for me, *everything* gets filtered through my own mind/conscience.  i posted this once before already - but it seems too applicable not to do so again.  By a man named George MacDonald.

"Neither let thy cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another call it light, while it looks to thee dark.  Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it.  But of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing, as interpreted, must be right because God does it, is of the devil.  Do not try to believe anything that affects thee as darkness.  Even if thou mistake and refuse something true thereby, thou wilt do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than thou wouldst by accepting as His what thou canst see only as darkness."

[Vort]

Just now, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

i respect that.  i guess for me, *everything* gets filtered through my own mind/conscience.  i posted this once before already - but it seems too applicable not to do so again.  By a man named George MacDonald.

"Neither let thy cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another call it light, while it looks to thee dark.  Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it.  But of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing, as interpreted, must be right because God does it, is of the devil.  Do not try to believe anything that affects thee as darkness.  Even if thou mistake and refuse something true thereby, thou wilt do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than thou wouldst by accepting as His what thou canst see only as darkness."

How do you apply this to the idea of living prophets? It sounds like you will only accept prophetic teachings that you already happen to agree with. Is that the case? If so, what good are prophets?

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, pam said:

But yet there are numerous men called to be Primary teachers.

Correct.  In the same manner that Fathers also take part in rearing their children.  But the primary (read: leadership) responsibility belongs with the Mother.

[lostinwater]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

How do you apply this to the idea of living prophets? It sounds like you will only accept prophetic teachings that you already happen to agree with. Is that the case? If so, what good are prophets?

Thank-you for the civility.

You know when you read something really profound you hadn't thought of before?  Or you hear something that makes you uncomfortable, but deep down you know it's the right thing to do?  i need a reaction like that now.  Something isn't right automatically just because someone who says they say everything right says it.  i hear lots of things i know i need to change that a part of me doesn't want to (and unfortunately don't act on all of them)  - but the Light of Christ, conscience - whatever name you have for it - stamps it as acceptable.

But like when i hear a Catholic tell me infants who aren't baptized are going to hell, or Jehovahs Witnesses say only 144,000 are saved, or hear someone try to explain how polygamy was ever right or ok or justifiable, or read about a woman needing to be subject and inherently obedient to her husband - that's the kind of stuff i feel i have to pass on.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

Yeap, it's the "new" age of enlightenment.  God bless us because we are so, so much better than those racists, misogynist pigs who lived in the past.  We are the best that have every lived-no one in the past has ever had the knowledge that we do to look upon the "wisdom of the ages" and spit upon them.  Thank you God b/c we are so great!!!

Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.
Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.
But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.
And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

x)

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you for the civility.

You know when you read something really profound you hadn't thought of before?  Or you hear something that makes you uncomfortable, but deep down you know it's the right thing to do?  i need a reaction like that now.  Something isn't right automatically just because someone who says they say everything right says it.  i hear lots of things i know i need to change that a part of me doesn't want to (and unfortunately don't act on all of them)  - but the Light of Christ, conscience - whatever name you have for it - stamps it as acceptable.

But like when i hear a Catholic tell me infants who aren't baptized are going to hell, or Jehovahs Witnesses say only 144,000 are saved, or hear someone try to explain how polygamy was ever right or ok or justifiable, or read about a woman needing to be subject and inherently obedient to her husband - that's the kind of stuff i feel i have to pass on.

lostinwater, you posted the above ostensibly in reply to my questions. Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I don't see any answer. To repeat the questions:

How do you apply this [that you wrote before] to the idea of living prophets? It sounds like you will only accept prophetic teachings that you already happen to agree with. Is that the case? If so, what good are prophets?

[lostinwater]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

lostinwater, you posted the above ostensibly in reply to my questions. Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I don't see any answer. To repeat the questions:

How do you apply this [that you wrote before] to the idea of living prophets? It sounds like you will only accept prophetic teachings that you already happen to agree with. Is that the case? If so, what good are prophets?

Thank-you.

i certainly tried to.  Apologies if my answer may have seemed to dodge the question.  Rephrased for clarity, i deal with people who say they are living prophets by evaluating everything they say against my own internal God-given compass.  If it checks out, i try to implement.  If it fails to check out, i try to further work it out in my mind/conscience, and ultimately discard if it still fails.  

If it still appears that i am dodging your question, what is it you are wanting me to say?

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

i respect that.  i guess for me, *everything* gets filtered through my own mind/conscience.  i posted this once before already - but it seems too applicable not to do so again.  By a man named George MacDonald.

"Neither let thy cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another call it light, while it looks to thee dark.  Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it.  But of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing, as interpreted, must be right because God does it, is of the devil.  Do not try to believe anything that affects thee as darkness.  Even if thou mistake and refuse something true thereby, thou wilt do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than thou wouldst by accepting as His what thou canst see only as darkness."

FWIW, George MacDonald was not a prophet.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

i certainly tried to.  Apologies if my answer may have seemed to dodge the question.  Rephrased for clarity, i deal with people who say they are living prophets by evaluating everything they say against my own internal God-given compass.  If it checks out, i try to implement.  If it fails to check out, i try to further work it out in my mind/conscience, and ultimately discard if it still fails.  

If it still appears that i am dodging your question, what is it you are wanting me to say?

I'd like you to answer my last question: What good are prophets? If they teach something you don't like and you ignore it because you don't like it, what's the point of having a prophet?

You can bet that the Pharisees felt deeply that Jesus was wrong and that what he preached was contrary to their (highly educated and nuanced) understanding of God's will. Did that justify them?

Honest questions.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

i certainly tried to.  Apologies if my answer may have seemed to dodge the question.  Rephrased for clarity, i deal with people who say they are living prophets by evaluating everything they say against my own internal God-given compass.  If it checks out, i try to implement.  If it fails to check out, i try to further work it out in my mind/conscience, and ultimately discard if it still fails.  

If it still appears that i am dodging your question, what is it you are wanting me to say?

So, what you're saying, is you are pitting your conscience against the word of God as given by living prophets? Your own gut feelings outweigh the pattern God established to provide us the path back to Him?

[JoCa]

56 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you. 

Curious - what else do you feel we really have?  Someone else's conscience that they insist is the truth (and may, or may not, be)?  

We have scriptures and Prophets.  Today, kids and society has been taught moral relativism, which is exactly what you said above-everyone's "truth" is only based upon their own subjective conscience.  Overall this will lead to a total break-down of society.  Society exists because a large group of people have a basic understanding of what is good and what is bad (i.e. conscience).  It is why multi-culturalism fails horribly, it is why different countries exists, why different cultures exist-because each has their own set of values that the herd/group/society collectively agrees on.

The US is based on, and has been from it's beginning, a Judeo-Christian European conscience based on the Bible.  Once that underpinning is gone (and it is going fast), then each man becomes a "god" unto themselves . . .this is what is happening.  This will lead to a breakdown in society. 

[JoCa]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

While I heartily agree with the thrust of what you're saying, I disagree with the above sentence. Equal does in fact mean same. I believe the whole discussion of "Are men and women equal?" is doomed to failure because of this. Of course they are not "equal"! They're fundamentally different!

Now, if you're asking if men and women are of equal value in the eyes of God, then I assume the answer is yes. But again, equal means same. Men and women hold the same value in God's eyes. In that sense, they are absolutely equal. And in the eyes of the law, they are (or at least should be) absolutely equal. There should be no legal favoritism based on sex (or race or religion or...). And yet again, that equality means sameness. The law should not care or even look at the defendant's (or victim's) sex.

I agree but slightly disagree.  In the eyes of God, yes we all hold equal value; but that equal doesn't mean same. We are taught and we know men and women will have different roles to play in the here-after.  A woman will never become Heavenly Father . .. Heavenly Mother yes, but not Heavenly Father-just as a man will never become Heavenly Mother.  So even in the hereafter equal does not mean same.  Both can be exalted, both can receive eternal life, but the roles played in the hereafter will be just as different as they are in mortality.

[JoCa]

46 minutes ago, Vort said:

^^ This ^^

The hubris in this modern age is actually quite stunning.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I agree but slightly disagree.  In the eyes of God, yes we all hold equal value; but that equal doesn't mean same. We are taught and we know men and women will have different roles to play in the here-after.  A woman will never become Heavenly Father . .. Heavenly Mother yes, but not Heavenly Father-just as a man will never become Heavenly Mother.  So even in the hereafter equal does not mean same.  Both can be exalted, both can receive eternal life, but the roles played in the hereafter will be just as different as they are in mortality.

To be fair, and please note that I tend to believe what you're saying is correct, but...this is unknown.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To be fair, and please note that I tend to believe what you're saying is correct, but...this is unknown.

I agree . . . I just can't imagine why a HF would give us gender proclaim in the Proclamation of the Family that it is an essential characteristic just so in the hereafter we all become androgynous humans . . .doesn't make any sense to me.

[JoCa]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So, what you're saying, is you are pitting your conscience against the word of God as given by living prophets? Your own gut feelings outweigh the pattern God established to provide us the path back to Him?

Yeap . . .the older I get and the more the world spins into decadence and away from God the more that I wonder about our "conscience".  The more that I actually tend to believe (and it does go slightly against modern Prophetic teaching, but not necessarily against scriptures), that what we call our "conscience" is really something that is taught to us; it is taught through parents, leaders, teachers and culture.  And that the Light of Christ isn't our "conscience" it could be; but I'd say our conscience is more about which spirit we are listening to.  The Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Devil.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, JoCa said:

I agree . . . I just can't imagine why a HF would give us gender proclaim in the Proclamation of the Family that it is an essential characteristic just so in the hereafter we all become androgynous humans . . .doesn't make any sense to me.

Right. That's not what I'm saying. We DO know that gender is an eternal characteristic (see Proc to the Family). What I'm saying is we do not know why Heavenly Mother does not interact with us, if this is the standard and requisite eternal nature of mortal interaction with gods, etc. Yes...probably. Just that we don't know.

[JoCa]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Right. That's not what I'm saying. We DO know that gender is an eternal characteristic (see Proc to the Family). What I'm saying is we do not know why Heavenly Mother does not interact with us, if this is the standard and requisite eternal nature of mortal interaction with gods, etc. Yes...probably. Just that we don't know.

Okay, copy . . .got it.  Totally agree.