DiscussMormonism.com

I have a question wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:This is my time to find delight in her glory...
It's her time to stretch, grow, learn, dig deep, lead, follow, and serve.

That's great, however, you stopped short of the full quote.

Let thy soul delight in thy husband and the glory which shall come upon him."

This FQ wife was teaching Relief Society Presidents (like your wife) that they should delight in their husbands glory. Not that it was a reciprocal arrangement.

Understood. I'm OK with what she taught.

However, I feel even better with my stance on things.
Floats. Boats.

hagoth7 wrote:Understood. I'm OK with what she taught.

However, I feel even better with my stance on things.
Floats. Boats.

Wonderful religion. If you don't like what is taught, you can just make it up to suit yourself.

(Until you start saying it in public, and someone in authority notices, of course ... then you'd better watch out. Somehow I don't think the First Presidency is going to like the idea that a woman holding an office is to be 'glorified' to the same extent as a male priesthood holder.)

moksha wrote:Besides delighting in their husband's glory, they should also hold fast to the iron rod of the Priesthood.

Philo Sofee wrote:

moksha wrote:Besides delighting in their husband's glory, they should also hold fast to the iron rod of the Priesthood.

Simple holding is not enough (fast or gentle). The salvation can be reached by work only.

hagoth7 wrote:Understood. I'm OK with what she taught.

However, I feel even better with my stance on things.
Floats. Boats.

I agree that your stance is more equitable, more reasonable, and more acceptable.
However, your stance isn't the Church's stance (unless you can find an example where the Church teaches that husbands are to find delight in their wives glory), which places you somewhere on the Apostasy Spectrum.

I have a question wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Understood. I'm OK with what she taught.

However, I feel even better with my stance on things.
Floats. Boats.

I agree that your stance is more equitable, more reasonable, and more acceptable.
However, your stance isn't the Church's stance (unless you can find an example where the Church teaches that husbands are to find delight in their wives glory), which places you somewhere on the Apostasy Spectrum.

OK. Let's see how apostate I really am here.

From a talk when I was a young man: After telling, early on, about the example of Joan of Arc, Brother Peterson said, "The Lord bless you, brothers and sisters. The Lord bless you to get a glimpse of the glory that is available to all the children of our Father in heaven. But you have to do your part to get that glimpse of glory...."
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/h-burke- ... pse-glory/

A better example, from a General Conference address when I was somewhat newly married: "A woman’s richest rewards will come as she rises to fulfill her destiny as a devoted daughter of God. To all faithful Saints He has promised thrones, kingdoms, principalities, glory, immortality, and eternal lives. (See Rom. 2:7; D&C 75:5; D&C 128:12, 23; D&C 132:19.) That is the potential for women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is exalting, everlasting, and divine. God bless us to honor each woman in her divine mission as a woman of infinite worth, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... h?lang=eng

So despite things like this, have I still somehow pegged the Apostasy meter? Thoughts?

Chap wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Understood. I'm OK with what she taught.

However, I feel even better with my stance on things.
Floats. Boats.

Wonderful religion. If you don't like what is taught, you can just make it up to suit yourself. (Until you start saying it in public, and someone in authority notices, of course ... then you'd better watch out.

Still feel that I've made anything up in this thread?

Chap wrote:Somehow I don't think the First Presidency is going to like the idea that a woman holding an office is to be 'glorified' to the same extent as a male priesthood holder.)

Somehow, I think the First Presidency is just fine and dandy with the idea that a woman can be glorified simply by being faithful, office or not.

hagoth7 wrote:? I serve in the nursery (this is my my second such calling in a ward nursery), and I benefit a great deal from it. I haven't found that anyone in my circle of influence values such service in a lesser light than any other calling. Service is service.

I see this is where you are hiding.

Most members value callings like EQP, Bishop, SP, etc as more esteemed then callings like nursery. Now members cannot be open about it, and many even try to convince themselves they are the same. Most members pretend they don't really want certain callings or wouldn't feel a little more important if they were bishop or married to the bishop. Were not supposed to be this way, but in reality members are no different then the rest of the human race.

hagoth7 wrote:Thoughts?

Thought: I'm hoping you come back to the other threads where questions to you are still left unanswered. For example, I'm quite interested in what motive you attribute to the leadership of the Church justifying interfering with the teaching of uncomfortable history on the grounds some (all?) of the membership isn't ready for it, but don't see a motive for the leadership manipulating the narrative of the Church.

Or, how an appeal to scripture as authority overcomes the issues with scripture at least in part being man-made invention such as evidenced by the example of the Marcan Appendix.

Thoughts?

Themis wrote:I see this is where you are hiding.

:0)

Themis wrote:Most members value callings like EQP...We're not supposed to be this way, but in reality members are no different then the rest of the human race.

OK. I can't speak for how others might feel, but I've actually served in leadership, and I honestly enjoy serving in Primary considerably more than any other place in the church.