The Glory of Men is the Woman


Xavier
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Sorry. Men and women are not equal. The only way to achieve equality is in unity and to do so usually means giving up something, sometimes a lot. In your scenario, if that's what you agreed to, then yes, you've achieved equality in unity. But you weren't raised as a slave and I'm sure that you wouldn't be happy as a slave, so it seems that your scenario is just smoke. It makes me wonder how you think anyone ever achieved happiness and harmony (if that's what equality is supposed to achieve) coming from cultures where that is the exact scenario you just described. 

Come up with a better solution.

I guess we get to go back to the basics.  What exactly do you define EQUALITY to be?  Unless we both have the same biological markers then we're not equal?  If I want beans and you don't we're not equal?  If I make a dollar more than you we're not equal?  If I cook not because I want to but because somebody has to, then I'm in a state of inequality?

And please, stop putting a caricature of me infront of you and attacking it.  I have not once told you what my position or understanding is of the matter.  I am simply trying to understand you and you making those assumptions about me make it doubly hard for me to understand what you're saying.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I guess we get to go back to the basics.  What exactly do you define EQUALITY to be?

I believe I explained that.

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Unless we both have the same biological markers then we're not equal?  If I want beans and you don't we're not equal?  If I make a dollar more than you we're not equal?  If I cook not because I want to but because somebody has to, then I'm in a state of inequality?

The fact remains that men and women are not equal. I explained my reason for that as well. As for what you want, what you make or whether or not you want to participate has nothing to do with equality in unity. Equality in unity is a matter of sharing the make the two into one. It isn't a matter of whether or not you want beans or not. The problem is what you do when you want beans and your other half didn't bring any when you expected them to. Especially if you agreed that he would. We are always unequal we are always going to be unequal. We will always have wants that will not be met. Equality only comes in unity.

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And please, stop putting a caricature of me infront of you and attacking it.  I have not once told you what my position or understanding is of the matter.  I am simply trying to understand you and you making those assumptions about me make it doubly hard for me to understand what you're saying.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Except for this one point, when I say you, I mean your argument, the ideal you are trying to present. Please note in the preceding response, I offered a "you" for your stated "I". "What if I want beans", "As for what you want..."

I'm not attacking you. As I said, I'm not sure what you're implying, but if that's it, then that's not what I'm doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Yes, abortion happens, but not in the church.

You must belong to a different church than I do.

4 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Abortion is a euphemism for murder; there's no way around that.

In your mind it might be, but not everyone in the church would agree with you.

 

4 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Could people not disclose abortion details to their Bishop? Sure. But, I'm quite certain the guilt would get to them, they would stay away from church, and it would essentially be a self-imposed form of church discipline.

Sorry. That is simply not true.

4 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

And yes, the solutions I provided were from the wife's POV because you said the husband was in law school. Could he give up his position and watch the child? Sure, absolutely. That's perfectly fine. More than likely, though, it sounds like your hypothetical involves placing the baby in the hands of someone else during the day. Like I said, I don't think it's preferable to have someone else watch your kids for extended periods of time. But if the wife and husband both want to pursue careers, that's often what happens. 

The intent was to seek out how they could work it out making to that both partners were equal and one. So, in making it equal and one, it appears that you'd decide that the wife has to give up something. How is that equal? In the perfect Mormon world, she'd not even consider pursuing a career in that direction but instead pursue a career in being a housewife and stay at home mom. But that isn't what she wants to do. Do you, as a husband support her or squash her dreams and insist that she do the "right thing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

You must belong to a different church than I do.

In your mind it might be, but not everyone in the church would agree with you.

 

Sorry. That is simply not true.

The intent was to seek out how they could work it out making to that both partners were equal and one. So, in making it equal and one, it appears that you'd decide that the wife has to give up something. How is that equal? In the perfect Mormon world, she'd not even consider pursuing a career in that direction but instead pursue a career in being a housewife and stay at home mom. But that isn't what she wants to do. Do you, as a husband support her or squash her dreams and insist that she do the "right thing".

Okay, I'll concede. You live in California, which is a vastly different world. Even still, why would you even pass off the idea of abortion as a possibility? Is that a serious option for a practicing member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I'm guessing most everyone on here would be against that option, so why even bring it up? If you were talking to regular citizens of California, it might be something that people would realistically consider. But that is clearly against the doctrines of the church. And maybe some members don't think abortion is a grave sin, but do any of the local leaders believe this? Surely not any of the General Authorities. Here are some excerpts Russell M. Nelson that he delivered in a GC talk a few years ago.

In World War I, more than 8 million military fatalities occurred. In World War II, more than 22 million servicemen and women died. Together, these two wars, covering portions of 14 years, cost the lives of at least 30 million soldiers worldwide. That figure does not include the millions of civilian casualties. These data, however, are dwarfed by the toll of another war that claims more casualties annually than did World War I and World War II combined. Worldwide reports indicate that more than 40 million abortions are performed per year. This matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Then He added, “Nor do anything like unto it.”

Relatively few abortions are performed for the special circumstances to which I have referred. Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused.

Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.”

When I said abortion doesn't happen in the church, I meant it doesn't happen to active members with a strong testimony (at least it shouldn't). I don't doubt that it happens. Just have a hard time imagining it being normal for someone to have an abortion and to continue in a calling for a long period. You seem to suggest that it is relatively normal. How many people do you know that fall under this umbrella? As in, they had an abortion and continued on with attending church meetings and fulfilling their calling as though nothing happened. 

As far as the family situation,  If a mom is staying home and the father is working, they're both working for the greater good of the family.  If the wife really wants to pursue a career, that's fine. I'm not against that. My wife was in nursing school when she was pregnant with our first child. She decided to drop out because she thought it was too stressful dealing with pregnancy stuff, going to class all day, and studying all night. She willingly left school on her own accord. I would have supported her in any direction. She wants to stay home with the kids while they're young - and probably will return once they're all in school. I've even told her previously that I could be a stay home dad and she could work full-time, if that's something she really wanted. At the end of the day, families are more important than careers. Would love for all kids to have a stay-home mom, if that's a possibility. But not all circumstances allow that. And if a career is what the wife really wants, go for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

When I said abortion doesn't happen in the church, I meant it doesn't happen to active members with a strong testimony (at least it shouldn't).

I know that's what you meant. I just happen to disagree. I can see that this abortion statement, which I didn't think I offered as an option, I was just making a note that it could happen. In my scenario, they already had the child. Obviously, an abortion couldn't be an option. 

18 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

As far as the family situation,  If a mom is staying home and the father is working, they're both working for the greater good of the family.

And if the mom works at a career and the father is working, they are both working against the greater good of the family? The point I'm trying to make is it's only good for the family if the mom wants to stay home, but what if she doesn't want to?

18 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

And if a career is what the wife really wants, go for it.

Ok. I'm not trying to argue that the wife should work if she wants to. What I'm am arguing is that it can only work if the two come to an agreement as their situations in life change. That agreement, as your experience indicated, may require one or both giving up something they had been working for. That's the only way I see that equality can work in an unequal relationship. I like Paul's term for his wife that we find in the New Testament. He called her his yokefellow. I believe that term aptly describes an equal relationship in the bonds of marriage between two unequal persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
On 1/7/2020 at 12:40 PM, Xavier said:

I am wondering how much of this ideology is still accepted by today's society?

Is the "Me Too" movement causing many people to determine that men are no longer needed by women?

How is 1 Corintians 11 still relevant in today's society and/or church culture without being looked like a misogynist?

My understanding is this:

  • Man's head (authority come from) is Christ
  • Woman is Man's glory
  • Woman's glory is her hair

How is this ideology going to bring people to the truth when it causes many woman to be cautious of men due to the current universal feeling of womanhood and it's rise in "equality"?

the glory of male is indeed female. I'll post more on this, all three points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2020 at 8:07 AM, anatess2 said:

I disagree with this completely.  I have an entire society of grandparents that prove this wrong.

What I gathered from your post is that you put your hat of respect on the woman having no opportunities for a career.  This is the biggest error of the Feminist Movement - the idea that full-time Motherhood is not respectable.  The idea that "unless I can do what a man can do we're not equal".  Societal traditions in the old days was structured around the lack of technology and opportunities that women have today.  In the olden days, women stay home when they have their periods.  They didn't have the privilege of tampons.  My mother grew up in the 40's and monthly sanitation consisted of something akin to a ginormous cloth diaper.  Women stay home when they were pregnant.  They didn't have the privilege of ultrasounds and high-tech medical facilities.  Women stayed home until the baby is weaned from breastmilk.  Feeding babies off formula, gerber, and baby bottles was not a thing.  And because women were having to stay home so much, then they do the home things - maintaining a well-organized, clean, and peaceful home while men bust their bums at the factories - and organizing societal things - like community service.  These were things women took pride in - the organization of their homes and societies, the discipline of their children, etc. etc.  They had a very vital role in life, equally (if not more so) than the factory.

Human progress have led to men inventing things so women get all this opportunity to not stay in the house.  They don't need to anymore.  Even when they have periods, get pregnant, have kids to care for.  So now women are clamoring for "equality".  They want to be CEOs and Scientists and Presidents... do they clamor to clean ditches and collect trash and work heavy machinery?  No.  Because that's just not what women like to do.  Women like the same things they liked when they were staying home more often - care services, organization services, management.  But now, they don't want to do it for their own homes - they want to do it outside the home.  Which means - their vital importance in society - that of Motherhood, managing children house and home - is left for other people to do.  So now they complain that men aren't doing Motherhood even as men are still cleaning ditches and collecting trash that women don't like doing.  But the craziness of all this is that Women also believe Men staying home to do the "Motherhood" job is also unrespectable.  Women - even Career Women - want to marry Men who make a lot of money - even more than they make.  So now, the responsibility of raising children is left like a hot potato with no takers.

So no.  Just because there are lesser opportunities for women to be Career Woman back in the day doesn't mean they were disrespected.  They held a vital role in society that they are ditching today.  Personally, I believe Women ditching the vital and very satisfying role of Mother and putting such as an unrespectable choice has caused great damage to today's society.

 

 

 

 

 

Not everyone, for whatever reason, will get the opportunity to marry or have children in this lifetime. If a woman wants to work outside the home, she should have that right. It is not fair for someone who cannot bear children to be forced to sit at home all day doing nothing, and being made to feel less than because she is not a mother and has decided to work. Just as there is no shame in a man deciding to be a stay at home dad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2020 at 1:42 PM, ldsguy422 said:

 

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. 

What about the man. Why is it so bad that he works part time, or stays at home with the kids until they're old enough that he can reenter the workforce.  

 

Why does all your options only involve the woman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 2:31 PM, 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.

I think that sometimes someone wants things, but then once they are safer, and under the contract, then a problem starts, because it's too easy to ignore the whole picture. I'm female, but I think that often females do not want to ruled by their husband and therefore, a long term battle ensues. It could be the husband is not loving or caring and rules badly, or, that he really tries, and the woman wants to be in charge. But all this is the carnal rearing up.... The male, assuming he is listening to God, must rule the family. And that's it. If there is an oppressive situation, then that's something that of course has to be resolved. Too bad though that both sides enter into an agreement, but hide from the other anything that could be an impediment later. The main thing is that 1) female must submit to male authority, and that 2) both must be submitting to God. If those two conditions are true, then it's okay and anything can be resolvable.

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2020 at 10:40 AM, Xavier said:

I am wondering how much of this ideology is still accepted by today's society?

Is the "Me Too" movement causing many people to determine that men are no longer needed by women?

How is 1 Corintians 11 still relevant in today's society and/or church culture without being looked like a misogynist?

My understanding is this:

  • Man's head (authority come from) is Christ
  • Woman is Man's glory
  • Woman's glory is her hair

How is this ideology going to bring people to the truth when it causes many woman to be cautious of men due to the current universal feeling of womanhood and it's rise in "equality"?

We need to read this in the historical context it was written.  Frankly, this is not a custom in many places - the head covering stuff.

i also do not believe it means what it has traditionally been interpreted to mean and that’s because we do not consider the context or culture.

Woman being the glory of man is being forgotten in today’s world.  It means that man glories (honors, has pride in) in women like Paul when he said the Thessalonians were his glory and joy.  1 Thess:20 For ye are our glory and joy.

God glories in Christ, Christ glories in man, man glories in woman.  Seems pretty fitting to me :)

its really not about authority.

Edited by Rimon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2020 at 7:29 PM, brotherofJared said:

I would love to hear your views on where and how it's "the Lord's way" where husband and wife are equals. Such is obviously not the case both physically and mentally.

Galatians 3

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

D&C 88

107 And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.

 

men and women are equal.  Same? Absolutely not.  Is one better than the other?  Not actually possible by nature of gender only maybe by their righteousness.

if we can all be made equal with Christ, who is equal to God then we are seen as equals in the eyes of both God and Christ.

I have seen this equality debate elsewhere and those who say we are not equal really just seem to be fighting the narrative that we are all the same and there are no differences.  Truth is, we have to be equal.  If anyone is superior, it’s women because they create life.  We’re different, but equal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The Biblical pattern for male and female is equality of worth at the same time as difference of role in the family, in the church and in society. These are complementary -not contradictory – principles.

The great lie of feminism, and modern definitions of discrimination, is the assertion that equality of worth cannot exist at the same time as differentiation of role.

The great lie of male chauvinism is the assertion that differentiation of role cannot exist at the same time as equality of worth.

The quarrels of both feminism and chauvinism then are not essentially with each other but really with the Biblical pattern; for both are unwilling to hold both principles in Biblical balance, but insist on either of the principles to the exclusion, in totality or in part, of the other.”

https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/distinctions-between-male-and-female/men-and-women-equal-in-value/

thought this was pretty good addressing both sides of the debate today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
17 hours ago, e v e said:

.The male, assuming he is listening to God, must rule the family.

No it is not God's plan for a man to rule the family.  The man presides, but that is not the same as rule.  I'll give you one example, but you can find many more on LDS.org
 

Quote

"Presiding in righteousness necessitates a shared responsibility between husband and wife; together you act with knowledge and participation in all family matters.  For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion."
Pres. Howard W. Hunter, Being a Righteous Husband and Father, General Conference, October 1994

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
10 hours ago, Rimon said:

If anyone is superior, it’s women because they create life.

Women can't create life without men.  Men and women need each other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Women can't create life without men.  Men and women need each other.  

True.  We do need each other and we’re made to compliment. 

My statement was just just to show that we cannot place one value of either males or females to show superiority over the other.  So if we believe in superior/inferior then we have some major problems.  We each have qualities that are important and vital and shouldn’t diminish the opposite sex in anyway.  We’re equal, but different and really have zero business competing or comparing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2020 at 2:54 AM, lilscorpie said:

Not everyone, for whatever reason, will get the opportunity to marry or have children in this lifetime. If a woman wants to work outside the home, she should have that right. It is not fair for someone who cannot bear children to be forced to sit at home all day doing nothing, and being made to feel less than because she is not a mother and has decided to work. Just as there is no shame in a man deciding to be a stay at home dad. 

In your First-World-present-times view, of course! 

Back in the 50's and in today's 3rd World, there are not enough paid jobs for everybody.  Therefore, men go out to work to find money, women stay home and take care of the children, their elderly parents, and their homes using the money the men take home.  Women who don't have their own children help their sisters, cousins, or other women with their children or take care of disabled people or the elderly.  Nobody in society gets left behind because somebody has an important job to do in the society.  A job is not only important because it is paid work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In your First-World-present-times view, of course! 

Back in the 50's and in today's 3rd World, there are not enough paid jobs for everybody.  Therefore, men go out to work to find money, women stay home and take care of the children, their elderly parents, and their homes using the money the men take home.  Women who don't have their own children help their sisters, cousins, or other women with their children or take care of disabled people or the elderly.  Nobody in society gets left behind because somebody has an important job to do in the society.  A job is not only important because it is paid work.

This isnt the 50s and as a disabled woman who cannot have kids, it is not my responsibility to help other people in my family raise their kids. I did not have them. They did. 

I'm not talking about 3rd world countries. I am talking about my own personal experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lilscorpie said:

This isnt the 50s and as a disabled woman who cannot have kids, it is not my responsibility to help other people in my family raise their kids. I did not have them. They did. 

I'm not talking about 3rd world countries. I am talking about my own personal experience. 

You don't feel we have a responsibility to assist our brothers and sisters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You don't feel we have a responsibility to assist our brothers and sisters?

I don't think that's what she meant at all. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
Just now, Grunt said:

Then maybe she can clarify what she meant.

Yep.  But if one reads the whole exchange before that comment, I doubt an explanation would be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share