LDS Church: Sexist?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is a bit of an odd comparison, but I think the point is made.

How far can a ship go with just the captain? How far will it go without one?

Marriage is not a ship, an army, or a corporation. Marriage and family are unique. I truly believe there can be an absolute partnership between husband and wife, both being co-equal. One 'presiding' over the other makes that impossible, in my opinion.

[_Runtu]

This is a bit of an odd comparison, but I think the point is made.

How far can a ship go with just the captain? How far will it go without one?

Marriage is not a ship, an army, or a corporation. Marriage and family are unique. I truly believe there can be an absolute partnership between husband and wife, both being co-equal. One 'presiding' over the other makes that impossible, in my opinion.

There simply is no reason for "leadership" to be concentrated in one of the partners.

[_Jason Bourne]

In regards to "respect", Mormons love to attack the cross that many christians and catholics wear

.

Some do. Some don't. I don't. Do you typically use the bad behavior of others to excuse your immature assine behavior?

Your underwear are funny. The fact that you regard them as sacred is hilarious. You do understand the origins of the Mormon temple garments, right? The masonic square and compass? The changing style and requirements to wear them does not cause you to question the purported divinity of them?

I am totally educated on how we got the endowment and the ties to masonry. There is nothing that you can surprise me with. I have read Quinn on this. I have read the Book Mysteries of Godliness which outlines the detail of the history of the LDS endowmnet.

If you cite the rote answer of Adam and Eve wearing GARMENTS, just like yours, I will loose the small amount of respect I have gained for your more realistic (a.k.a. liberal) views on Mormon doctrine

I view the garment as totally symbolic to the meaning I give it and nothing more. There is little in the LDS temple endowment that I believe is literal other then perhaps the references to the life of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us. I am sure my view is not the norm though I am finding others of similar thoughts.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I view the garment as totally symbolic to the meaning I give it and nothing more. There is little in the LDS temple endowment that I believe is literal other then perhaps the references to the life of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us. I am sure my view is not the norm though I am finding others of similar thoughts.

I share similar views. The only parts I take as literal are the oaths and covenants; in my opinion, everything else was merely symbolic support to those oaths and covenants. I guess this is why it never really bothered me that Joseph Smith liberally borrowed from Freemasonry in establishing the details for the endowment ceremony. Perhaps little more than the oaths and covenants come from direct revelation from God (and perhaps not even all of those, but possibly just the general concepts), and He left it up to Joseph figure out the logistics to implement these oaths and covenants (for example, we know Emma played a large role in coming up with the design for the temple clothing, etc.). Just my $.02.

[_truth dancer]

So, Rollo and Jason,

If the garment is nothing more than a symbolic representation of the covenants, designed by earthly folks a few hundred years ago WHY MUST THEY BE WORN? Why can't folks come up with their own symbols that may actually be meaningful?

While I no longer wear them, no matter hard I tried, (and I tried REALLY HARD), they just NEVER ever felt even remotely Godly, divine, holy, peaceful, comfortable, or anything else positive. I wore them as a sacrifice, showing my obedience. But they were destroying my life, my marriage, my sense of being, my sanity. There are many ways to bring symbolism into one's life without such a thing.

I'm glad you guys have found a way to have them be meaningful but I think you are very much the exception.

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If the garment is nothing more than a symbolic representation of the covenants, designed by earthly folks a few hundred years ago WHY MUST THEY BE WORN? Why can't folks come up with their own symbols that may actually be meaningful?

I have never viewed garments as anything but symobolic -- I never bought into the idea that they also provide physical protection. I think garments are required to be worn simply because they've taken on a life of their own these past 160 years or so (Joseph wasn't even wearing his at Carthage Jail, which BY later seemed to suggest was why he was allowed to be killed). I'm sure there are innumerable ways one can symbolically remember the temple oaths and covenants, as well as demonstrate piety. I personally do not think highly of symbols or outward expressions of faith -- to me, it all depends on what is in the heart, which only God can know. Mormonism, in my opinion, has become obsessed with outward expressions of faith and worthiness, such that what is on the inside (the true evidence, in my opinion) tends to be overlooked. Sort of an attitude of 'as long as you look and act TMB, then you must be.' My experience is that this often is not the case, and that some of the best parts of Mormonism get lost among the myriad pharisaic TBM-details and culture.

[_Jason Bourne]

If the garment is nothing more than a symbolic representation of the covenants, designed by earthly folks a few hundred years ago WHY MUST THEY BE WORN?

Well it depends who you ask. To me the reason is that we who have gone to the temple promised to do so in order to be regularly reminded of the covenants we made in the temple.

Why can't folks come up with their own symbols that may actually be meaningful?

Who said they can't? Go for it. by the way, your statement seems to imply that wearing the garment as a religious symbol is not meaningful. It certainly is meaningful to those who choose to view it as such.

While I no longer wear them, no matter hard I tried, (and I tried REALLY HARD), they just NEVER ever felt even remotely Godly, divine, holy, peaceful, comfortable, or anything else positive.

I do not think they were ever meant to feel godly or divine but rather to call our mind to remembrance. But you had a problem with them. Ok. Don't wear them. This does not meant others do not have a totally meaningful experience in relation to what they represent. And by the way, I find them very comfortable to wear. Better then briefs or boxers.

I wore them as a sacrifice, showing my obedience. But they were destroying my life, my marriage, my sense of being, my sanity.

Oh come now. How were they destroying your life and marriage. Don't you think there were other things at play here?

There are many ways to bring symbolism into one's life without such a thing.

For you perhaps but not for others.

I'm glad you guys have found a way to have them be meaningful but I think you are very much the exception.

I think you are most certainly wrong about this. My guess is most of the active TBMs that were them are quite fine with it and many find them meaningful.

[_Jason Bourne]

If the garment is nothing more than a symbolic representation of the covenants, designed by earthly folks a few hundred years ago WHY MUST THEY BE WORN? Why can't folks come up with their own symbols that may actually be meaningful?

I have never viewed garments as anything but symobolic -- I never bought into the idea that they also provide physical protection. I think garments are required to be worn simply because they've taken on a life of their own these past 160 years or so (Joseph wasn't even wearing his at Carthage Jail, which BY later seemed to suggest was why he was allowed to be killed). I'm sure there are innumerable ways one can symbolically remember the temple oaths and covenants, as well as demonstrate piety. I personally do not think highly of symbols or outward expressions of faith -- to me, it all depends on what is in the heart, which only God can know. Mormonism, in my opinion, has become obsessed with outward expressions of faith and worthiness, such that what is on the inside (the true evidence, in my opinion) tends to be overlooked. Sort of an attitude of 'as long as you look and act TMB, then you must be.' My experience is that this often is not the case, and that some of the best parts of Mormonism get lost among the myriad pharisaic TBM-details and culture.

Well said.

[_Polygamy Porter]

So then you are implying that how often a person wears the garments is open to self interpretation like the WoW?

I interpret the WoW to allow me to drink iced coffees, no HOT chocolate, beer(mild drink from barley), and only wear the garments when I attend the temple. I also interpret tithing to be 10% of my net-net. After all of my bills are paid, LDS can have 10% of whats left.

Is a Mormon allowed that freedom?

HELL NO.

[_Jason Bourne]

So then you are implying that how often a person wears the garments is open to self interpretation like the WoW?

Anything is open to interpretation. But I never said how often one wears the garments was open ended. I think I noted that when one promises to wear them they probably should. But if one is not comfortable wearing them choose not too. I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

I interpret the WoW to allow me to drink iced coffees, no HOT chocolate, beer(mild drink from barley), and only wear the garments when I attend the temple.

]

Bully for you. I interpret it to mean no coffee, tea, booze, drugs, etc. I drink caffeinated diet cola and hot chocolate as well as eat chocolate. I think overweight LDS are more offenders of the WoW then someone who drinks moderately. I was such and offender before I decided to get off my fat a.. and lose about 40 pounds by watching what I eat and exercising. I have 15 more pounds to lose to hit my goal.

I also interpret tithing to be 10% of my net-net. After all of my bills are paid, LDS can have 10% of whets left.

And you would be fine declaring yourself as s full tithe payer if you did this and this is your understanding of increase.

Is a Mormon allowed that freedom?

HELL NO

I agree that many would have a problem with such and approach but if you were fine with it and were comfortable in a TR interview with what you do and how you answer most bishops are not going to probe a whole lot more then that.