Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I understand why plural marriage would have practical ramifications that simply wouldn't work if the sexes were reversed (genealogy).  But I'll have to think for a while regarding what that has to do with who is ordained to the priesthood.

Considers/research also the patriarchal order. Edit: (and patriarchal priesthood).

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Considers/research also the patriarchal order.

Yeah, I was going to the patriarchal order.  And there is some sort of parallel with the genealogy thing.  In fact, it IS genealogy.  So, I think I'm on the track of what you're saying.  I'll just have to do some more research/pondering/praying about it.

BTW (by the way -- heh heh) I didn't quite quote the institute instructor very well.  But his point was something along this line as well.  I just didn't get it first hand.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've done some searching on this and an institute instructor mentioned something about how a man goes to a woman for one thing.  But if a woman didn't have to go to the man for the priesthood, then she'd have no spiritual need for a man.

I am having a very hard time finding the quote, but I though I remember reading in the "Miracle of Forgiveness" that President Kimball believed that without sexual intimacy, and the male-female sexual attraction, men would generally be unwilling to take on the responsibility of marriage and family.  I will keep looking, because I thought it was very interesting when I first read it, and it surprised me to hear a General Authority say that, but the way he put it made it seem pretty compelling that it would likely be true.

EDIT:  I did find this quote though, which is kind of saying the same thing but from the opposite end of the marriage decision:

Quote

“if you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorneys, but that is the reason.”
((Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball)

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, person0 said:

I am having a very hard time finding the quote, but I though I remember reading in the "Miracle of Forgiveness" that President Kimball believed that without sexual intimacy, and the male-female sexual attraction, men would generally be unwilling to take on the responsibility of marriage and family.  I will keep looking, because I thought it was very interesting when I first read it, and it surprised me to hear a General Authority say that, but the way he put it made it seem pretty compelling that it would likely be true.

President Packer hinted at that as well, I think in his “To the Boys and To the Men” sermon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, person0 said:

I am having a very hard time finding the quote, but I though I remember reading in the "Miracle of Forgiveness" that President Kimball believed that without sexual intimacy, and the male-female sexual attraction, men would generally be unwilling to take on the responsibility of marriage and family.  I will keep looking, because I thought it was very interesting when I first read it, and it surprised me to hear a General Authority say that, but the way he put it made it seem pretty compelling that it would likely be true.

EDIT:  I did find this quote though, which is kind of saying the same thing but from the opposite end of the marriage decision:

Yes, I believe I read that in "Miracle..." as well.  But that wasn't what I meant by "a man goes to a woman for one thing."  Now rereading it, I totally understand how you got that impression.  

What I meant was that there is some spiritual trade off between man and woman.  A woman has some sort of spiritual something that men lack.  But the woman only lacks the priesthood.  SOMEthing like that.  Like I said, I'm totally butchering the actual message.  But I'll be on the trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

BTW (by the way -- heh heh) I didn't quite quote the institute instructor very well.  But his point was something along this line as well.  I just didn't get it first hand.

Understood. But the way you did say it implied mortal things (a man goes to a woman for sex) and tried to blend that in with eternal things. The man is nothing without the woman and the woman nothing without the man. They are incomplete without each other. A man has no right to the patriarchal order without a wife just as a woman has no right to it without a man. But...it is the "patriarchal" order, not the matriarchal for a reason.

By modern politically correct standards there's not getting around it. The gospel is a patriarchy and is sexist and chauvinistic. (It's not really (except the patriarchy part)...just by politically correct 'enlightened', modern standards).

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think women being given priesthood offices/keys would fit this level better.

If my understanding of the (patriarchal) Priesthood is at all correct, even in the general ballpark, then women being ordained to Priesthood office would be equally a violation of "core" prinicples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What I meant was that there is some spiritual trade off between man and woman.  A woman has some sort of spiritual something that men lack.  But the woman only lacks the priesthood.  SOMEthing like that.  Like I said, I'm totally butchering the actual message.  But I'll be on the trail.

This would also be faulty. I do believe there is some practicality in the - men need "responsibility" to be responsible - idea. Some. But the flaw comes in the idea that holding priesthood keys or offices is the only means to give responsibility. (Case in point: Relief Society President).

I understand this may not be the message and you're still looking. Just commenting as we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Never heard this term before. I assume haeresis is Latin for "heresy".

Yes, his mantra was that the "Doctrine of Christ" is that we are to receive the second annointing/calling and election sure/Second Comforter/etc. in this life.  "It was never intended that the moment of death would be when the veil would be rent."   And if you don't believe that, then you are simply suffering from "unbelief".

So, to summarize, you believe exactly as he says or you're a heretic.  Ergo, reductio ad haeresis.

EDIT: Ironically, I don't believe the veil will be rent at the moment of death.  I believe it will be a gradual process as we approach the judgment seat. It's more like moving through a bank of fog.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

EDIT: Ironically, I don't believe the veil will be rent at the moment of death.  I believe it will be a gradual process as we approach the judgment seat. It's more like moving through a bank of fog.

I agree with this to an extent.  It's part of a principle I call 'The Duh Factor', which is intended to reference the idea that if the veil is immediately eliminated, then Duh, God exists and Christ is really the Savior, etc, etc.  At that point, no one other than a Son of Perdition would reject the gospel message in the spirit world.

I hypothesize that those in spirit prison probably have a different process with the removal of the veil than those in paradise.  I also hypothesize, that Satan and his followers have some type of ability to continue to influence the decision process of those in spirit prison.  We can find out if I'm right when we're both dead and have a good laugh about it.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

EDIT: Ironically, I don't believe the veil will be rent at the moment of death.  I believe it will be a gradual process as we approach the judgment seat. It's more like moving through a bank of fog.

Piercing the veil of forgetfulness at death would seem to belie the idea that we can repent and progress in the time between our death and our resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, person0 said:

I agree with this to an extent.  It's part of a principle I call 'The Duh Factor', which is intended to reference the idea that if the veil is immediately eliminated, then Duh, God exists and Christ is really the Savior, etc, etc.

...and the first things you see are a coffee pot and an ashtray...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now