Mister Scratch wrote:Okey doke. I can't very well engage in a victory dance, though. It's not much of a victory when one continuously competes with a habitual quitter.
Coggins7 wrote:Its always invigorating when a critic exposes his own obsessions and fixations through a projection of them onto others with whom he disagrees. Textbook example, Rollo, so thanks (hint: Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing more.
I've never quite figured out if Rollo is a flaming leftist or a flaming conservative fundie.
To the extent that these to catagories may overlap, especially at their far fringes, we could have a kind of bastard offspring of a completely original kind here.
Regardless, the teachings of the churuch, historically, on the reasons why woman hold no Priesthood, are so bloody clear and have been so umambiguously articulated over generations that going around this sugar bowl again and again and again has become quite literally brain damaging.
Woman's and men's roles in the Gospel plan are somewhat different. There is an emphasis and deemphasis in various areas of life (home life vs. work, caring and nurturung of children as over against men's somewhat different type of role modeling and leadership). There is a differentiation of labors and emaphasis based upon complimentary differences between men and woman across several different dimensions, including biological, psychological, and emotional.
The "patricarchal order", is a recognition of these dynamics as well as a divinely ordainded pattern through which his children will attain ultimate happiness and within which family and personal relationships between men and woman will be most productive to their progression.
The bottom line is that woman do not need the Priesthood.
They are, when worthy, quite capable of excersing all the gifts of the Spirit, performing all the miracles, and having all the revelations and spriitual experiences men are.
The one thing, the big pimple on the face of the Church in the minds of secularist liberal critics, is that woman cannot hold the Priesthood not for the spiritual power and authority it confers (which all worthy female members have through their faith in Christ and their living of the Gospel in any event), but for the ecclesiastical authority it confers; woman cannot be Bishops, Stake Presidents, Missions Presidents, or even ward clerks.
It is , in other words, as with feminst ideology in the secular world, about nothing more than institutional power, in this case, institutional power within the church. It will be an uderstatement for me to point out that the seeking of insitutional power and authority withing the Lord's church puts one as far from both the letter and the spirit of that institution and its teachings as one could possibly go.
This is quite simple: men cannot seek, or angle, for positions, callings, or mantles of authority in the church, and therefore, neither can woman.
Men are called to the Priesthood, and they are called to offices within it. Men are called to be Bishops, ward clerks, and Apostles.
They cannot seek for, compete for, or ask, in any manner, for such callings.
He calls whom he calls. in what manner and in what time frame he so desires. We, whether men or woman, respond to that call.
Woman should not desire or seek Priesthood authority anymore than men should, or can, seek or angle for offices of authority within it.
If you get called as a Bishop, well, then you do, and that's a calling of authority and responsability, but its not something one seeks after, or runs around saying "why can't I be a Bishop, or a Stake President?".
Than's not how the church works, and that's not how its doctrines and teachings apply to the concept of ecclesiastical authority.
wenglund wrote:And my point has been that a "certain appendage" is not a qualification for priesthood blessings ....
Coggins7 wrote:Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
This is a tangent from the SWK bio thread. This coming year, the MP quorums and Relief Society will be studying the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. I always liked SWK; he was one of my favorite Church presidents (his apparent obsession with sexual sin, notwithstanding).
Loran:
Its always invigorating when a critic exposes his own obsessions and fixations through a projection of them onto others with whom he disagrees. Textbook example, Rollo, so thanks (hint: Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing moreSo, by this logic, the "job as a Prophet" includes things like:
---recounting stories about how Cain is actually Bigfoot
---telling married couples that oral sex is a depraved sexual sin
---claiming that masturbation will lead to circle jerks, which will in turn lead to homosexuality.
Sorry, Loran, but this seems much more likely an instance of the Prophet being fallible, and acting as a man.
Loran:
1. I'll take authoritative sources for all of the above claims, so we can analyze them for their provenance and as to whether they constitute actual binding church doctrine or the various cultural or personal preferences of general or local leaders.
(emphasis added)Coggins7 wrote:Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing more
Coggins7 wrote:2. The above contains no logical or philosophical content relative to the point I made about Kimball and his response to the culture of the era in which he was President.
3. If you'd like to construct and place on the table an actual cogent argument in rebuttle to my main point, that the seventies were an era of unprecedented sexual decadence and irresponsibility, and that part of Kimballs's job as Prophet to the church and to the world was to confront those cultural attributes, so be it.
If not, may a large, brightly colored Arachnid with a severe personality disorder bite tender parts of your body worlds without end.
Coggins7 wrote:
Its always invigorating when a critic exposes his own obsessions and fixations through a projection of them onto others with whom he disagrees. Textbook example, Rollo, so thanks (hint: Kmball was in no way 'obsessed with sex". He was, however, President of the church in an era (the seventies) that quite patently was (and continues to be). He was doing his job as a Prophet, and nothing more.
Obviously you haven't read The Miracle of Forgiveness, in which he recycled that infamous refrain 'better to be dead than impure.' by the way, was SWK "doing his job as Prophet" when he observed that Native American skin was turning a lighter shade of brown on its way to becoming white and delightsome?
Quote:
I've never quite figured out if Rollo is a flaming leftist or a flaming conservative fundie.
I consider myself a "flaming leftist" (at least compared to you).
Quote:
Regardless, the teachings of the churuch, historically, on the reasons why woman hold no Priesthood, are so bloody clear and have been so umambiguously articulated over generations that going around this sugar bowl again and again and again has become quite literally brain damaging.
The only reason I've ever heard is: "That's the way it's always been!" Yeah, real articulate.
Quote:
The "patricarchal order", is a recognition of these dynamics as well as a divinely ordainded pattern through which his children will attain ultimate happiness and within which family and personal relationships between men and woman will be most productive to their progression.
According to Joseph F. Smith, this "patriarchal order" is eternal -- In other words, regardless of "progression," men will always preside over women, now and forever.
Quote:
The bottom line is that woman do not need the Priesthood.
Why not? And why would someone "need" it to have it? This makes no sense at all.
Quote:
They are, when worthy, quite capable of excersing all the gifts of the Spirit, performing all the miracles, and having all the revelations and spriitual experiences men are.
But yet they can never perform ordinances or hold and exercise the priesthood. They can never hold any position of administrative importance in the Church (or in heaven, since the patriarchal order is in place there, too). They cannot even be equal to their husbands in their own friggin' homes.
"But yet they can never perform ordinances or hold and exercise the priesthood".
"They can never hold any position of administrative importance in the Church (or in heaven, since the patriarchal order is in place there, too)"
Quote:
It is , in other words, as with feminst ideology in the secular world, about nothing more than institutional power, in this case, institutional power within the church. It will be an uderstatement for me to point out that the seeking of insitutional power and authority withing the Lord's church puts one as far from both the letter and the spirit of that institution and its teachings as one could possibly go.
And what about the next life, where women will be in the same position as they are today? Forever and always to be presided over by a man.
Quote:
This is quite simple: men cannot seek, or angle, for positions, callings, or mantles of authority in the church, and therefore, neither can woman.
Coggins7 wrote:Obviously, you find it quite difficult to focus on one point or issue at a time and attempt to provide serious, logical arguments in support of your own views or in refutation of the views of others. Here we embark on the traditional scattergun approach of anti-Mornomism: jump from one point to another in random manner and lead the interrogator on a merry chase through evey possible criticism of the church without ever examining a single issue in any depth.
The "better dead than in bed" idea has never in any sense been church doctrine nor even official church counsel. It was the perception, or attitued of some GA's in past generations, and it was unfortunate.
Kimballs' second point is just genetics.
The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as white as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. (emphasis added)
As I've said about you and others here before, you don't understand the church's teachings or doctrines, nor have you done anythng near the homework you need to do before mouthing one criticism of it. You've got a long way to got to even marginal credibilty as a seriouis critic of the church.
... I'll just say that to "preside" in the restored gospel has a utterly different meaning than that which clearly you attach to the term. The Father presides over Christ. Is Christ in a debased or undignified positon relative to him?
I explained why not in outline. As to an ultimate answer, I have no idea whatever.
As to why would anybody at all need it, if you don't understand Mormon doctrine on that subject at this juncture, I'd suggest leaving the field of battle altogether.
Put an argument in rebuttle of it on the table and lets subject it to critical analysis (as to the Celestial Kingdom, woman will be gods there, so what, precisely can you add to that Rollo?).
The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount.
Gospel Doctrine, p. 287 (emphasis added).
Woman will be gods in the Celestial Kingdom.
Gods are exalted, perfect beings, possessing all attributes in perfection. What can be added to this that would be missing from the life of a god?
... I'm getting dizzy.
It was certainly doctrine, even if it is now ignored. The 'better dead than in bed' teaching has found its way into the priesthood manual (Lesson 41, 1969-70) and the Relief Society Magazine (Dec. 1952). Of course, many prophets (including JFSmith, HJGrant, SWK) also espoused the doctrine over the pulpit. Were they leading the Church astray when they taught this?
It had nothing to do with genetics, as is clear from SWK's comments:
Quote:
The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as white as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. (emphasis added)
Note, my dear fellow, that SWK is comparing the changing colors within the same family (not down the line due to "intermarriage"). Ever studied English, Loran?
I never said a woman's position was "debased" or "undignified." But I see (and you don't) a fundamental difference between (i) the hierarchy among priesthood holders (i.e., all men) at Church, and (ii) the fact a husband "presides" over his wife in their home and family. There simply is no reason for any husband to "preside" over his wife in the home -- to be truly equal, one cannot "preside" over the other.
Quote:
Woman will be gods in the Celestial Kingdom.
Correction: a goddess, subject to her god-husband.
Quote:
Gods are exalted, perfect beings, possessing all attributes in perfection. What can be added to this that would be missing from the life of a god?
Being forever subject to her husband's authority.
Quote:
... I'm getting dizzy.
I can only imagine, given your poor performance. Get some rest and come back when you're better prepared.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:wenglund wrote:And my point has been that a "certain appendage" is not a qualification for priesthood blessings ....
So you agree that having a certain appendage is required to hold and exercise the priesthood?
As you still clearly have not the slightest idea what the difference is between official doctrine and any other kind of teaching or counsel within the LDS church, you really need to turn your hat around, pull up your pants, sit down and shut up and sit at the knees of those who do and pay attention.
No, I have no problem with English. I do, however, have problems with slithering little reptiles like you who have no intention of serious, honest debate but who are only out gunning for the faith and sacred things of others. Too bad you can't get your kicks in some other way...too bad.
There is nothing here preventing what SWK saw as being purly genetic in origin. Their are white Indians living in Latin America and they've been known for sometime. Further, as you have no idea what intermarriage or sexaul pairing took place in those Indian families in past centuries, and what genetic material their may actually be in that mix, you are blowing smoke out your considerable backside and doing nothing more. My wife's grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee. She doesn't look Amerindian, but the genetic material is there. She married a man who was half Japanese. One son is lighter skinned and has sandy hair, the other has black hair, a slightly darker complexion, and an obvious eye flap, which the other lacks.
You see Rollo, your problem, like most other professional gainsayers, is that you are a blind, true believeing ideologue who has no conern for the disciplines of critical thought or nuanced reasoning. Your mind is the mind of the political activist mixed with that of the rightours, passion imbued fanatic. That's why you can lie through your pearly whites to people like me, Wade, and Gazelam who know perfectly well you don't know what you're talking about but can sit here and watch you try to tell us what our church teaches and what is doctrine and what isn't when clearly it doesn't really matter to you what the chruch teaches, as long as you can extract some cultural practice or folk doctrine from the dusty attic of church history and use it as a charm to cast out your own personal demons.
This is indicative of another pathetic and morally decrepit psycholgical and intellectual derangement known as socialism, or leftism, to which sin you have already confessed. Talk about spirits that weren't valient. Egalitarinism is Satan's bread and butter, it always was, and always will be. There is no such thing as pure equality.
Nothing in the universe is "equal" if by that you mean literally the same. Woman and men are not the same. They are equal under the law of God and the Gospel, and they are equal partners in the home.
The man presides because of certain characteristics that inhere both in the eternal gendered spirit, and in biology. Equality is always relative and embedded in the natural hierarchies of human relationships, and there is nothing wrong with hierarchy when mediated by the principles of righteousness.
Equality of condition is not the answer to the problems of the misuse of hierarchal relationships.
There is a reason why the man "presides" in the home but as you don't have the intellectual capacity or self honesty to understand the concepts involved, I'd reather lecture my Venus Flytrap on the finer points of belly dancing.
{snip irrelevant comment about insect life} All men are subject to Christ. Christ is subject Old Testament God the Father. The Father is subject to his Father.
Get it? Have you ever actually studied, digested, and tried to understand LDS doctrine Rollo?
{snip gratuitous stupidity before Loran gets busted back to Primary}