Mormon Feminism is Back (and its Name is Still "Apostasy.")

[_Droopy]

It's sad that you don't have the character to apologize after falsely accusing me of fabrication.

But it is a fabrication in the sense that it is a strained and tendentious interpretation of a trivial change in wording of a church manual, and considering that similar wording appears in other contemporary Church documents, such as the Proclamation on the Family.

The fact that you need to mount obfuscation and prevarication on top of character assassination is unfortunate. It's quite clear to anyone without an insidious agenda that the church is trying to bury Heavenly Mother.

I'm not sure what there is to bury, given that nothing at all is known about her, within the confines of LDS theology, beyond that she exists and is a natural and inherent part of the plan of salvation and the fundamental meaning and purpose of existence for beings such as ourselves. Both men and woman (and only together united and sealed as eternal companions and co-creators with God) can attain exaltation and a "continuation of the lives," Without Heavenly Mother, there would be no plan of salvation at all (and indeed, the Gospel of Philip says that without marriage, "the universe would not exist"). However, there is no revealed or worked out teaching regarding her past this bare outline, and she is, directly, not part of our worship.

Someone deliberately edited Heavenly Mother out of the manual. And they don't do that without explicit instruction from the Celestial 15.

It was our Heavenly Father's plan, and he stands at the head of the Grand Council (the Godhead) of the Celestial world. It is a patriarchal order and all priesthood, from all mortals, through Adam and then to Christ, center and originate in him. The change in wording was, at best, a desire to emphasize that core doctrine. Keep in mind that the Gospel Principles manual is milk. It is intended as basic, introductory doctrine, not philosophical theology.

It's also clear that you don't understand what the term "de-amphasis" [sic] actually means. How sad for you.

They didn't de-emphasize Heavenly Mother. Heavenly Mother has never been emphasized at all.

[_Droopy]

Yes, because a Goddess of the universe is incapable of protecting herself from the big, bad humans.

And, yeah, this is taught frequently.

What would you suggest? Lightning bolts? Earthquakes? forty days and forty nights of rain? AIDS?

[_lulu]

Yes, because a Goddess of the universe is incapable of protecting herself from the big, bad humans.
And, yeah, this is taught frequently.

What would you suggest? Lightning bolts? Earthquakes? forty days and forty nights of rain? AIDS?

No nookie . . .

For eternity. That'll teach 'em to ignore me. Gods, Priests and kings indeed.

[_just me]

Yes, because a Goddess of the universe is incapable of protecting herself from the big, bad humans.
And, yeah, this is taught frequently.

What would you suggest? Lightning bolts? Earthquakes? forty days and forty nights of rain? AIDS?

No, that's how your god rolls. The Goddess needs no protecting because humans are simply not a threat. She is part of us and all that is.

[_Jason Bourne]

I read it real slow the first time, and the way you phrased it here implies explicit identity of agreement with their views.

I thought you were done talking with me because somehow I am now beneath you and not worth your time.

They tire of the oft repeated message of wife and mother being their main job and the culture that paints those who differ as apostate. They would love to have more opportunities to lead.

And again the denigration and trivialization of the role of wife, mother, and "homemaker" and the entire argument flowing from the assumption that church callings, spiritual leadership, and the divine calling of both father and mother (and governance within the Church) are about competing power relations between men and woman and official ecclesiastic status within the Church.

Yes this is what they tell me I sure I think they have a point. That does not mean I think mother, homemaker and so on are not important and critical. A career and other goals do not have to be mutually exclusive to these things Droopy. I know that is tough to comprehend when you have monolithic thinking.

I am starting to agree with most here that you are incapable of serious discussion. Anytime someone disagrees with you you fly of into your paragraph length sentences that end up meaning nothing other than some far right uber conservative rant.

I rest my case. You are too far gone, and life is far too short.

This is rich coming from you. Yes life is far to short. And if someone was going to save me (as if I really need saving) it certainly would not be an arrogant hard liner like you. I have great disdain for the type of world and even church you portray. I feel sorry for you and the narrow mindedness you display.

I am starting to perhaps agree with Kevin Graham about your intellect and you ability to comprehend. I never did anything of the sorts.

Yes, you have. Its called "sentences" and "paragraphs." The fact that you are so unaware of the philosophical/logical implications of what you write and the impressions you create through the language you use is utterly astounding.

Really Droopy all I am for is choices without a culture that condemns and marginalizes those who want different paths. The Church tries to portray it is this way in their Mormon Ads. But in reality it preaches something very different and not one that is accepting of persons who want the non traditional path.

And by the way I personally have no problem if a woman chooses a different path than what the Church teaches. Personally I still believe that marriage is very important and when children come one parent at least should be in the home and typically the mother is the best choice though not always. But I honor peoples choices to work through their own paths and desires with out heaping loads of guilt on them. Here is the rest of what I said. Try responding like and adult otherwise don't bother.

And now you back-peddle - furiously - once called out. This is, again, typical and true to type (there are many others here of similar persuasion.

Oh kiss off. There is no back peddle here. Called out? By you? Indeed you are a legend in your own mind if you think I worry about your view of me. I still believe all what I said above and believes it before I read your comments. Note though the last part of my comments and this is where we diverge:

But I honor peoples choices to work through their own paths and desires with out heaping loads of guilt on them.

This is where we differ. You honor nobody nor tolerate anyone whose view differs from yours and what you think the Church is and should be. And you demonize anyone who disagrees with you.

These are not aberrations Droopy. They are what women of our generation to some extent, really want. Certainly the generation behind us want such things even more so.

Do you dispute this Droopy?

I see you had little to add here.

That is why I asked before what does the Church do with a Brooks. You view her and those like her as the tares. Maybe so. But there are a lot more tares then coming up in this next generation that shouted hurrah when Julie Beck (who took a very hard line about a woman's role in the Church) was released at the last conference.

Then there are other churches, other belief systems, and other paths to walk. The Church is Christ's, not theirs.

That is fine. Then we can watch the Church shrink more and more. And by the way, the real question whether the Church is really preaching Christ's message on this and in the way he would want. You certainly aren't and don't. Try talking to some of these real people sometime. Get out from behind your computer. It will do you some good.

[_Buffalo]

But it is a fabrication in the sense that it is a strained and tendentious interpretation of a trivial change in wording of a church manual, and considering that similar wording appears in other contemporary Church documents, such as the Proclamation on the Family.

More obfuscation. You have no backbone or character. They systematically and deliberately removed references to her from the manual.

Why do you think the proclamation isn't canonized? It was written in the era when they still hadn't decided to erase heavenly mother. It will never be canonized for that reason - it refers to heavenly parents.

I'm not sure what there is to bury, given that nothing at all is known about her, within the confines of LDS theology, beyond that she exists and is a natural and inherent part of the plan of salvation and the fundamental meaning and purpose of existence for beings such as ourselves. Both men and woman (and only together united and sealed as eternal companions and co-creators with God) can attain exaltation and a "continuation of the lives," Without Heavenly Mother, there would be no plan of salvation at all (and indeed, the Gospel of Philip says that without marriage, "the universe would not exist"). However, there is no revealed or worked out teaching regarding her past this bare outline, and she is, directly, not part of our worship.

And with each passing year we know less and less about her - because they keep editing her out of the manuals, and hushing up people who want to talk about her.

It was our Heavenly Father's plan, and he stands at the head of the Grand Council (the Godhead) of the Celestial world. It is a patriarchal order and all priesthood, from all mortals, through Adam and then to Christ, center and originate in him. The change in wording was, at best, a desire to emphasize that core doctrine. Keep in mind that the Gospel Principles manual is milk. It is intended as basic, introductory doctrine, not philosophical theology.

See, you're de-emphasizing her too.

So in what sense do women become goddesses? It appears that you agree with John Larsen's characterization of the eternal fate of women in the church - voiceless broodmares. Lovely.

They didn't de-emphasize Heavenly Mother. Heavenly Mother has never been emphasized at all.

de-em·pha·size (d-mf-sz)
tr.v. de-em·pha·sized, de-em·pha·siz·ing, de-em·pha·siz·es
To decrease the emphasis on; minimize the importance of.

When you previously taught people about something, and then stop teaching it, you've de-emphasized it, by definition.

[_Runtu]

When you previously taught people about something, and then stop teaching it, you've de-emphasized it, by definition.

Sarah Granger Kimball, a Relief Society leader in the nineteenth century, consistently proclaimed the quality of "Father God and Mother God." Such a position might get her exed if she were alive today.

[_Droopy]

When you previously taught people about something, and then stop teaching it, you've de-emphasized it, by definition.

Sarah Granger Kimball, a Relief Society leader in the nineteenth century, consistently proclaimed the quality of "Father God and Mother God." Such a position might get her exed if she were alive today.

Only if she ran around asserting that she should be prayed to and worshiped in some official or coherent manner. Otherwise, its all a part of the plan of salvation and the very nature of the eternal relationship between man and woman.

[_lulu]

Sarah Granger Kimball, a Relief Society leader in the nineteenth century, consistently proclaimed the quality of "Father God and Mother God." Such a position might get her exed if she were alive today.

Only if she ran around asserting that she should be prayed to and worshiped in some official or coherent manner. Otherwise, its all a part of the plan of salvation and the very nature of the eternal relationship between man and woman.

Heavenly Mother should only be prayed to and worshipped in an incoherent manner, and that's the OCD.

[_Droopy]

Heavenly Mother should only be prayed to and worshipped in an incoherent manner, and that's the OCD.

I should have just said, "Only if she ran around asserting that she should be prayed to and worshiped in some manner."

You've got to keep it very, very simply around here for the offenders for a word who lurk in the deep woods.