Xavier

The Glory of Men is the Woman

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Do you mean that they should take care of the children they bring into the world? I think they should, don't you? But how they take care of them, doesn't mean pumping out another one just because the breech is empty. I don't know who you are referring to. I'm not aware of any church council to the effect of barefoot and pregnant. That is an idea of unrighteous dominion espoused by individuals and sometimes family culture but has never been a doctrine or a policy taught by our church.

However, since it seems that you broached the idea, let's say a return missionary gets married and discovers that after his wife has a baby, she wants to excel in her career path to become an anchorwoman at a broadcasting station in New York while her RM husband is trying to finish his degree in law school in Utah. What would be a hypothetical solution to what to do about the baby? Find me a loving, harmonious hypothetical solution to the problem.

I would say that it all could have been avoided if they had talked more about plans and dreams for their life before marriage. Don't marry someone whose goals don't line up with yours.

People should go over all sorts of things and figure out if they are a good match long before babies are in the picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't edit my post, but... I don't mean that men are always logical and women are always emotional. Neither is true, but what we do have should complement the other. Women are different than men mentally. It is not the same as two people are different. There are things in a woman's life that causes them to see things from a perspective that men cannot see. For example, the consequences of having sex far greater for a woman than a man. Men will never get that. We understand it, but we are limited. Women carry a life in them for 9 months and go through some changes that goes from not ever wanting to go through it again to wanting to go through it again. That is completely illogical to me.

I believe that view isn't associated completely with sex or childbearing but is innate. I don't believe Adam ever would have eaten the forbidden fruit. It was only Eve who would have. She saw things differently than did Adam. I believe her decision was made through wisdom while Adam, on the other hand, relied on intellect. She could see where remaining in the garden was good but that the garden wasn't all there was. I have a phrase I like, The glory of man is intelligence and the glory of woman is wisdom. Combining the two, glory and intelligence, makes us gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Sorry. You see the word "equal" and I see the word "differing" (I disagree with Elder Ballard's statement "assigned by him"). 

So you're just going to ignore the other quotes where he used the word EQUAL?  It app5that you're not interested in a discussion just a soapbox....yours. 

Carry on, I'm sticking with what our Leaders...male and female have taught on this subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

People often speak of the 1950s nostagically, as if we could return to those days everything would be better.

I didn't say anything about Paul.  Frankly, I find his writings about women unclear, and so I look to our modern day Leaders for clarification.  Our modern leaders (as in the example I shared in my previous post) have explained clearly the role of men and women in the church.  Are you suggesting that our modern day leaders are wrong?  I ask because my opinions are coming from them and you seem to take issue with my ideas. 

I'm sorry. I find the modern-day clarifications equally unclear. Not wrong, but if we don't understand what Paul was saying and the modern-day clarifications don't make what Paul said clear, then the issue of the roles between a man and a woman in the church today are still unclear.

I'm not taking issue with your ideas. The OP was referring to Paul's statement and what I see that we're doing is ignoring what Paul said and opting for definitions that allow us to keep our preconceived notions about our roles even though they are somewhat reversed from what we think they were in Paul's day. They aren't reversed, they are pretty close to the same.

The idea of equality is difficult to navigate. If you have two people in a rowboat each having an oar, each being equally in charge but having different ideas about where to go one of two things are going to happen. Either one is going to get tossed out of the boat or they are going to never reach their destination. They have to agree together on the destination and work together to get to that destination. And that's with two perfectly equal people being in the boat, but men and women are not perfectly equal. Other considerations have to be made along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

NONE?  That is a frightening thought, I hope you don't live in Utah surrounded by Latter-Day Saints. 

No. I have never lived in Utah. Are you saying that Utah Mormons have happy equal relationships with no problems or disagreements at all?

Older couples seem to have worked out their issues and have decided to be happy with what they have. Younger couples have a rougher time of it, but they can get to that place in their life. But no one that I know of is always happy with what they have when they discover that they aren't going to get what they wanted.

My mother shared with me her experience when I was born. Reflecting back on it, it might be attributed to post-partum blues, but she confessed that once I was born, she realized that all her dreams and hopes would never be realized. She said, "I thought my life was over". Sister Hinkley, as I recall, made a similar statement. Her husband was rarely home. Such a discovery can be crippling and destructive to a relationship. Concessions must be made or happiness will ever be elusive. And this is only the beginning. The normal process of life. But it gets worse when a spouse discovers that their partner is not perfect or has limiting issues or is, in fact, inept.

Since no one is perfect, then - yes. There are none that have a completely equal happy relationship among all the people I know, both members of the church and non-members. But as long as they are working together, I really don't think their happiness is about equality.

Edited by brotherofJared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LadyGunnar said:

I would say that it all could have been avoided if they had talked more about plans and dreams for their life before marriage. Don't marry someone whose goals don't line up with yours.

People should go over all sorts of things and figure out if they are a good match long before babies are in the picture. 

That's fine until their goals change after they get married. People should but that doesn't mean they won't change. Besides, talk is cheap. It costs nothing to agree before the contract is signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So you're just going to ignore the other quotes where he used the word EQUAL? 

Nope. They all recognize there is a difference. It appears that most of this discussion only recognizes what one wants and not the context or the reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

That's okay. I wasn't expecting that you could meet my needs. You asked me what more I needed. I told you. If you had no intention of supplying that, then why bother asking? 

It was a simple question which you chose not to answer. But, IMO, you made a statement that is plainly not in the scriptures nor is it taught in the church. The members do not instruct the leaders. That's what I believe you implied. I was hoping that you'd clarify, but I guess not.

It was a rhetorical question.  If the Lord clearly puts the answer in scripture... and the church clearly encourages you to read said scripture... Why do you need me or anyone else to repeat it?  (aka rhetorical) As for not answering your question.. I see no reason to answer a question that fundamentally misrepresent what I am saying. Rather I address the true issue that you are twisting my words and I do not accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

That's fine until their goals change after they get married. People should but that doesn't mean they won't change. Besides, talk is cheap. It costs nothing to agree before the contract is signed.

Most people don't change that much.  You need to make agreements and honor them the best to your ability. People need to really know people before getting married.  

Share this post


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

People need to really know people before getting married.  

Personally, I think, we put too much emphasis on choosing the "right" partner, and not enough on building our relationship after marriage.   Although, I do agree that careful selection of a spouse is important.  For this reason, I recommend the book, How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk, by Dr John Van Epp to all my younga adult children, and single friends!   After marriage, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, by Dr. John Gottman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@brotherofJared, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.  To help me understand, I'd like to ask you what you mean when you use the word Equal?

Let's see... President Dallin H. Oaks was the one, I think, who illustrated gender roles regarding Priesthood Power as like an umbrella - Priesthood is the umbrella that blesses everybody under the umbrella.  The male role is to hold up that umbrella.  The female role is to gather the children under the umbrella.  The man is not the umbrella and neither is the woman.  But the man has the authority to hold up the umbrella for everyone.

Are they Equal in that scenario?  Or do you only consider them equal only if either one can hold the umbrella and either one gathers the children under the umbrella (basically, gender roles are interchangeable) as long as that's what they want to do?

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Personally, I think, we put too much emphasis on choosing the "right" partner, and not enough on building our relationship after marriage.   Although, I do agree that careful selection of a spouse is important.  For this reason, I recommend the book, How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk, by Dr John Van Epp to all my younga adult children, and single friends!   After marriage, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, by Dr. John Gottman.

I think you should talk about all the big things. You need to be on the same page as your spouse. 

I grew up having animals. I knew it was something that I wanted in my life as an adult. I made sure my boyfriend was okay with them. It was important to me and I would have walked away if he didn't. 

I had a list of things that I wanted for my spouse. I got them all.  They were things that I knew that I needed in a mate. I had watched  people get caught up in a pretty or good looking face and not look any further. Most were divorced within a year. 

You are spending the rest of your life with this person. Your children can be just like them. So it is very important to be picky and know the person before marriage. You also need to work on yourself and try to make yourself good mate material as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

I think you should talk about all the big things. 

Yes, of course....religion, children, goals, pets, city life or country life, definitely talk about that stuff.  Read How to Avoid Falling in Love With a Jerk....so you don't marry...a jerk/jerkette.

I'm just saying that choosing the right partner does not guarantee happily ever after.  Choose well....and then get to work on creating a happy marriage.  There is more to a great marriage than simply choosing the right person, after choosing them you have to live with them, share money with them, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the world thinking of equality and God's thinking of equality

My wife an I are not physically equal... while we both can take physical action we are not interchangeable when it comes to physical ability.  Which is what worldly thinking of equality would demand.

The same holds true for emotional, mental, and spiritual things.  We are not interchangeable, and depending on what is being asked one of us might clearly be superior.

Let me give a very basic example.  I am taller.  I can reach the top shelf my wife can not.  She can reach the top self with a small step ladder, and often she simply asks me to get it.  In this area we are clearly not equal.  The world would demand that I stop getting things on the top shelf or that we redesign the house to make all the shelving lower.  Both kind of doable both kind of ridiculous.  In spite claiming to value differences they would have us all be exactly the same.

The thing is there is nothing inherently wrong with being different or being better or worst at some arbitrary thing, it just is. Unlike what the world would tell you the problem is not the difference, the problem is our reaction to the difference.  If I think my being able to reach the top self makes me powerful, or an authority so that I can make others do what I want that is a problem... Its also a sin... and it is not a new sin it is a very old one of pride and unrighteous dominion.  On the other hand if my wife can't stand that she is not as tall, and can't abide me getting stuff she can not... well that is a problem to... it is also a sin... and it is not a new sin either... it is also a very old on of pride and jealously.

I find it interesting that in the scriptures the Lord does not use equal to describe a man and wife.  He uses being 'one.'  The same terminology he uses to describe his relationship with the Father, his command to his leaders, and his command to the body of his followers.  Paul goes into detail about how different the members of the body of Christ (aka body of his follows)  can be, while still being important and valuable part.  Husband and wife can and should be different while still being an important and valuable part of a marriage.

  The Church does use the term equal do describe marriage... does not use the term equality in attempt to ignore or wave away the differences between individual men and individual women in a marriage as the world would try to do.  Instead the modern use of the term 'equity' is the church's way of teaching and reinforcing ancient instructions against sin.  If a husband and wife truly think themselves as equal partners... well one can't really think they can dominate an equal... and it is really hard to be jealous of an equal partner.  But rather we can glory in our differences.  When one of is strong we can use that strength to bless the other when one of us is weak we can count on the support of the other to help.  Their triumphs become our triumphs their struggles become our struggles.  And thus we become one... and our uniqueness is not lost but encouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
0
 Advanced issue found
 
🖋
 
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

@brotherofJared, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.  To help me understand, I'd like to ask you what you mean when you use the word Equal?

Let's see... President Dallin H. Oaks was the one, I think, who illustrated gender roles regarding Priesthood Power as like an umbrella - Priesthood is the umbrella that blesses everybody under the umbrella.  The male role is to hold up that umbrella.  The female role is to gather the children under the umbrella.  The man is not the umbrella and neither is the woman.  But the man has the authority to hold up the umbrella for everyone.

Are they Equal in that scenario?  Or do you only consider them equal only if either one can hold the umbrella and either one gathers the children under the umbrella (basically, gender roles are interchangeable) as long as that's what they want to do?

Equal means in agreement. There is no way that a man and a woman can be equal other than in what they agree upon. The same is true between us and God. It simply is impossible for us to be equal. We believe that God will give us all that he has, but that does not make us equal. He will always be God and we will always his sons and daughters. Can any of us die for another person's salvation? how about a whole world of people's salvation? how about all the people who ever lived or ever would live on that world, for their salvation? No? Will we ever be able to? No. So no matter how equal we are in power and knowledge, we will still not be equal to him. But, like the three members of the Godhead who are equal in power and authority and knowledge. It doesn't come from the sense that they can do what the others can do, because they cannot. The Father cannot die for your sins and neither can the Holy Ghost, but Jesus could. The equality is in what they agree upon.

They are equal in that scenario if they agree and work together towards that scenario. But if the woman decides that her husband is too inept to hold the umbrella and tries to do it for him or replace him altogether because she can do a better job or because she thinks he can't do the job, then they are not equal even though she is very capable of holding up the umbrella.

Even if the husband stays at home and gathers in the children and the wife brings home the money, the food and provides the shelter for whatever reason, if that's the way they choose to work it out, then they are one. It is a team effort working towards the one end of saving their children. However, and by whatever means, it is one. Now, they can be one is disagreeing with God's plan and decide to go with a church that lets the woman be the priesthood. I think they will still have opportunity to rise in the first resurrection because they worked as one. Take Margaret Baker, for example. She's a Methodist minister. For all I know, maybe her husband is too and they both hold the priesthood or she may not be married at all. But I see no reason that they or anyone who believes as they do will be barred from heaven because they choose to have equality in their relationship as long as they choose it together and agreed. This means that some may have to give up on things they hoped for. I don't think that anyone who chooses a direction with another person doesn't have to make compromises that sometimes will really hurt. But it's not the end of the road as long as they work together. Even Christ had to compromise a lot in order to bring about the salvation of men. And, I'm sure his compromises hurt a lot. Sometimes we have to condescend to the other. 

That's what I think unity or oneness or equality in the relationship is. It is, IMO, the only way two diametrically opposite people can be equal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:16 PM, brotherofJared said:

However, since it seems that you broached the idea, let's say a return missionary gets married and discovers that after his wife has a baby, she wants to excel in her career path to become an anchorwoman at a broadcasting station in New York while her RM husband is trying to finish his degree in law school in Utah. What would be a hypothetical solution to what to do about the baby? Find me a loving, harmonious hypothetical solution to the problem.

Read through most of this thread today. Lots of good discussion. Your point on the hypothetical needs more attention, I do believe. I mean, in The Family: A Proclamation To The World, it clearly outlines the expectations of parents:

Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

So much in there. First, it's our duty to raise, nurture, love, teach, and correct our children. If it is possible to have a stay-home mom, I think the benefits are far more influential than having double income. Would you rather raise your kids - or would you rather a day-care center raise them? Perhaps some might think that's a little hyperbolic, but think about it for a second. If BOTH parents are working full-time, how much time do you have with your kids? A child between the ages of 3-5 is supposed to average roughly 12 hours of sleep a day. If you factor in 40 hour work weeks, plus one hour a day for commute, you're away from the child 45 hours a week. 7 * 12 = 84.... 84 - 45 = 39. A child in full-time day care spends more time (awake) at the day-care than at the home. Sorry, but I'd rather my wife or I have more say in the matter. Children should not represent lost opportunity. They are the greatest investment we'll ever have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LadyGunnar said:

Most people don't change that much.  You need to make agreements and honor them the best to your ability. People need to really know people before getting married.  

Well, change isn't always about the person. Circumstances do and will change. What we can't plan for is the way people will respond to those changes. I supplied a hypothetical situation. The change was an opportunity for the wife to advance her career. That was a change in circumstance, not the person. 

When these changes come around, it's anyone's bet what a person might do regardless of carefully laid plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1
 Advanced issue found
 
5
12 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

If it is possible to have a stay-home mom, I think the benefits are far more influential than having double income. Would you rather raise your kids - or would you rather a day-care center raise them? Perhaps some might think that's a little hyperbolic, but think about it for a second. If BOTH parents are working full-time, how much time do you have with your kids? A child between the ages of 3-5 is supposed to average roughly 12 hours of sleep a day. If you factor in 40 hour work weeks, plus one hour a day for commute, you're away from the child 45 hours a week. 7 * 12 = 84.... 84 - 45 = 39. A child in full-time day care spends more time (awake) at the day-care than at the home. Sorry, but I'd rather my wife or I have more say in the matter. Children should not represent lost opportunity. They are the greatest investment we'll ever have.

What your suggesting is your idea. If the wife agrees, then it's a happy equal decision, but if the wife doesn't agree. How can there be unity in the relationship? I asked for a solution that would meet the requirements of unity and equality and you have given me the misogynist view of the woman's role.

I don't believe the proclamation is that narrow, though many leaders in the church have taught that the woman's role is that narrow. That's the reason, I think, for some of the uproar. Personally, I don't think the priesthood is coveted by a lot of LDS women. That, IMO, is something that goes too far for most LDS women, not sure. But the idea that the woman's role is in the home raising children because the proclamation says that our responsibility is to our children is really going too far.

The easy fix for all of that is don't have any children. That, unfortunately, may call for an occasional abortion. I'm not preaching this route, but it is a common route. The idea is that what the church authorities don't know about, won't affect our options in the church. And, unfortunately, that is also very true (though I don't know what is confessed behind closed doors but the impediments just don't seem to exist). 

So, is the right way to work together or to insist that the wife give up her career using the proclamation to shame her into giving in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

Well, change isn't always about the person. Circumstances do and will change. What we can't plan for is the way people will respond to those changes. I supplied a hypothetical situation. The change was an opportunity for the wife to advance her career. That was a change in circumstance, not the person. 

When these changes come around, it's anyone's bet what a person might do regardless of carefully laid plans.

Did they talk about careers before marriage? Did they make plans around them and colleges and where jobs would take them? 

if they did then it would not be suprising that she will do what she wants to advance her career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

o have a stay-home mom, I think the benefits are far more influential than having double income. Would you rather raise your kids - or would you rather a day-care center raise them? Perhaps some might think that's a little hyperbolic, but think about it for a second. If BOTH parents are working full-time, how much time do you have with your kids? A child between the ages of 3-5 is supposed to average roughly 12 hours of sleep a day. If you factor in 40 hour work weeks, plus one hour a day for commute, you're away from the child 45 hours a week. 7 * 12 = 84.... 84 - 45 = 39. A child in full-time day care spends more time (awake) at the day-care than at the home. Sorry, but I'd rather my wife or I have more say in the matter. Children should not represent lost opportunity. They are the greatest investment we'll ever have.

What your suggesting is your idea. If the wife agrees, then it's a happy equal decision, but if the wife doesn't agree. How can there be unity in the relationship? I asked for a solution that would meet the requirements of unity and equality and you have given me the misogynist view of the woman's role.

I don't believe the proclamation is that narrow, though many leaders in the church have taught that the woman's role is that narrow. That's the reason, I think, for some of the uproar. Personally, I don't think the priesthood is coveted by a lot of LDS women. That, IMO, is something that goes too far for most LDS women, not sure. But the idea that the woman's role is in the home raising children because the proclamation says that our responsibility is to our children is really going too far.

The easy fix for all of that is don't have any children. That, unfortunately, may call for an occasional abortion. I'm not preaching this route, but it is a common route. The idea is that what the church authorities don't know about, won't affect our options in the church. And, unfortunately, that is also very true (though I don't know what is confessed behind closed doors but the impediments just don't seem to exist). 

So, is the right way to work together or to insist that the wife give up her career using the proclamation to shame her into giving in?

 

First of all, I said, "If it is possible." I never said it had to be that way. And in the very same sentence, I proceeded to say that I believed the benefits of having a stay home mom are far more influential than having double income. Kids perform at higher rates in school, they're better behaved, and you get to have a bigger impact on rearing your kids. And certainly the mom can always re-enter the workforce when the kids are in school. I don't believe for one minute that what I posted is misogynistic.  Again, I said if it's possible. The question that has to be asked, for families who can realistically afford to have one parent at home, do the rewards of having two incomes outweigh the cost of spending more time away from the children? I don't think they do. Yes, that's my opinion. But, I think most church leaders would agree - investing time in your family is more important than double income. 

If we re-visit your scenario, the couple actually has several options.

1. The could hold off on having kids for a little bit.

2. The wife could stay home with the kids. (she could work again when the kids are a little older)

3. The wife could work part-time and stay with the kids the rest of the time.

4.  Wife could work full-time and have a family member watch the baby. Or use a child-care service. 

You seem to suggest that having children is a great burden. If it's that big of a chore/responsibility for a couple, they probably need to hold off on having kids for a while. And the whole abortion talk? That's ludicrous. Straight crazy talk. If you believe in the teachings of the Church, you would never suggest that. I don't think any active person with a strong testimony could go through an abortion and hide it for any extended period of time. If someone is able to keep their secret away from their Bishop,  odds are they'd probably be overwhelmed with guilt and just stay away from church altogether. Children are not lost opportunities. They are blessings. Stressful, yes, but blessings. 

Edited by ldsguy422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LadyGunnar said:

Did they talk about careers before marriage? Did they make plans around them and colleges and where jobs would take them? 

if they did then it would not be suprising that she will do what she wants to advance her career. 

What difference does it make that they talked about it? Regardless of what they "agreed" to do, she is going to follow this career opportunity? If it wasn't something they agreed to do when they were planning their lives, is that grounds for divorce? Do what you said you were going to do or else? Is that being an equal partner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 2:51 PM, brotherofJared said:

Equal means in agreement. There is no way that a man and a woman can be equal other than in what they agree upon. The same is true between us and God. It simply is impossible for us to be equal. We believe that God will give us all that he has, but that does not make us equal. He will always be God and we will always his sons and daughters. Can any of us die for another person's salvation? how about a whole world of people's salvation? how about all the people who ever lived or ever would live on that world, for their salvation? No? Will we ever be able to? No. So no matter how equal we are in power and knowledge, we will still not be equal to him. But, like the three members of the Godhead who are equal in power and authority and knowledge. It doesn't come from the sense that they can do what the others can do, because they cannot. The Father cannot die for your sins and neither can the Holy Ghost, but Jesus could. The equality is in what they agree upon.

They are equal in that scenario if they agree and work together towards that scenario. But if the woman decides that her husband is too inept to hold the umbrella and tries to do it for him or replace him altogether because she can do a better job or because she thinks he can't do the job, then they are not equal even though she is very capable of holding up the umbrella.

Even if the husband stays at home and gathers in the children and the wife brings home the money, the food and provides the shelter for whatever reason, if that's the way they choose to work it out, then they are one. It is a team effort working towards the one end of saving their children. However, and by whatever means, it is one. Now, they can be one is disagreeing with God's plan and decide to go with a church that lets the woman be the priesthood. I think they will still have opportunity to rise in the first resurrection because they worked as one. Take Margaret Baker, for example. She's a Methodist minister. For all I know, maybe her husband is too and they both hold the priesthood or she may not be married at all. But I see no reason that they or anyone who believes as they do will be barred from heaven because they choose to have equality in their relationship as long as they choose it together and agreed. This means that some may have to give up on things they hoped for. I don't think that anyone who chooses a direction with another person doesn't have to make compromises that sometimes will really hurt. But it's not the end of the road as long as they work together. Even Christ had to compromise a lot in order to bring about the salvation of men. And, I'm sure his compromises hurt a lot. Sometimes we have to condescend to the other. 

That's what I think unity or oneness or equality in the relationship is. It is, IMO, the only way two diametrically opposite people can be equal. 

Well, that's messed up.

If I was conditioned since birth to be a slave and so my parents married me off to a slave owner and I became his slave because it's the only thing I know then my husband and I are equal because we agreed I'll be his slave and he'll be my master.

GREAT!  We've accomplished Equality!  

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