women as Sunday school presidents and men as primary presidents ?

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, lostinwater said:

As to what we are discussing - i have rambled.  My original intent was to convey the idea to the OP that perhaps much of what feels to her (and and many others)  like the marginalization of women in church and religion in general may have it's roots in Biblical references - and that it is my belief that said references may be more a reflection of the time and the imperfect aspects of the person talking than the mind and will of God.  And then it morphed into a discussion about prophets, who is a prophet, conscience, absolutism, etc.

I don't think you understand the implications of what you said.

[The Folk Prophet]

Duplicate

Edited September 30, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think you understand the implications of what you said.

Thank-you.

Sorry, can you elaborate?  Isn't that statement predicated on your opinions of my beliefs?  

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

Sorry, can you elaborate?  Isn't that statement predicated on your opinions of my beliefs?  

No. It's predicated on the fact that you clearly do not understand the priesthood, what it means, what it's for, why it is synonymous with the Patriarchal order, how and why women are a part of that order and play such an important role in it, how that order would be destroyed by the simpleton idea of "giving women the priesthood", how that order is specifically and eternally related to the means whereby God saves His children, and how your view means that God cannot do His own work. In short, you do not understand the Gospel.

A claim that women will someday get the priesthood is not a random opinion akin to thinking someday men will wear dresses and women will wear ties. It is a clear indication that the individual making such a statement had no clue what they're talking about. One might as well make the claim that someday we'll stop worshiping God and start worshiping Shiva. It is a claim, essentially, that you believe the gospel will someday cease to exist. Whether you are right or not is an opinion. But whether your view, and others like it, means it would not be the gospel any more has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that the Gospel, which is build upon the priesthood order, cannot stand if that priesthood order is corrupted.

Edited September 30, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course the idea depends on a few things: Who is "we"? Who are "other generations". Can you take specific examples, as you have, and apply them en masse as "other generations"?

Mind you, I don't disagree with you...If you take the entire history of time there are certainly groups of people in certain places who reached a level of righteousness that those who are righteous in our day haven't, overall, ascended to (punny? Ascended? City of Enoch? Haha?). But if you took a graph and charted righteous people I suspect that, despite spikes here and there, the overall trend would be upward in these latter days, as would the overall trend of evil.

True, depending on the timeline one is comparing the result would be different. Let's say, the "we" is since the restoration of the gospel, and the "other" is the dark ages. We have more convincing evidence that our timeline is truly getting much better than it previously was; however, in our day the "evil" is also more open than the dark ages (at least then, to more a degree it appears the "chastity" of woman was more respected).

I wouldn't have any disagreement with your last statement either.

[lostinwater]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. It's predicated on the fact that you clearly do not understand the priesthood, what it means, what it's for, why it is synonymous with the Patriarchal order, how and why women are a part of that order and play such an important role in it, how that order would be destroyed by the simpleton idea of "giving women the priesthood", how that order is specifically and eternally related to the means whereby God saves His children, and how your view means that God cannot do His own work. In short, you do not understand the Gospel.

A claim that women will someday get the priesthood is not a random opinion akin to thinking someday men will wear dresses and women will wear ties. It is a clear indication that the individual making such a statement had no clue what they're talking about. One might as well make the claim that someday we'll stop worshiping God and start worshiping Shiva. It is a claim, essentially, that you believe the gospel will someday cease to exist. Whether you are right or not is an opinion. But whether your view, and others like it, means it would not be the gospel any more has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that the Gospel, which is build upon the priesthood order, cannot stand if that priesthood order is corrupted.

Thank-you.

You have to remember that i am not an active member.  i just saw a post from someone who an expressed inner conflict i identified with, and attempted to interject my opinion on the matter.  i actually respect your beliefs.  i guess i understand why you don't reciprocate that, but it is sad.  i am not sure a tone like the one you've expressed above towards people who don't agree with you accomplishes anything positive.

i doubt i am going to change your mind, nor you mine, and mostly negative feelings are occurring, so i have to be done with this thread.  i won't post again on it.

But thank-you for the conversation - regardless of it's nature.

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

You have to remember that i am not an active member.  i just saw a post from someone who an expressed inner conflict i identified with, and attempted to interject my opinion on the matter.  i actually respect your beliefs.  i guess i understand why you don't reciprocate that, but it is sad.  i am not sure a tone like the one you've expressed above towards people who don't agree with you accomplishes anything positive.

i doubt i am going to change your mind, nor you mine, and mostly negative feelings are occurring, so i have to be done with this thread.  i won't post again on it.

But thank-you for the conversation - regardless of it's nature.

The fact that I stated it is your prerogative to worship according to the dictates of your conscience according to your agency didn't resonate with you huh?

[LoudLizard]

On 9/29/2017 at 1:45 PM, pam said:

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

There are women Sunday school teachers too.

 The governing of the priesthood bodies and auxiliary bodies are ordained as specific to gender whereas the service under those presidencies lies upon the ward members that God calls.

I was a primary teacher with my wife.  I know that there are exceptions but I always see men assigned to primary with a spouse.  I know that is not mandated though.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LoudLizard said:

There are women Sunday school teachers too.

 The governing of the priesthood bodies and auxiliary bodies are ordained as specific to gender whereas the service under those presidencies lies upon the ward members that God calls.

I was a primary teacher with my wife.  I know that there are exceptions but I always see men assigned to primary with a spouse.  I know that is not mandated though.

Actually, it is Church policy that men should be with a companion when teaching a primary class - either a spouse, another adult member of his family, or another adult man.  If there are not enough adults to provide companionship, then he may teach primary by himself with frequent visits by the primary presidency.

Edited October 1, 2017 by anatess2