The Bishop's Wife

[_moksha]

good grief bob, consigs whole conversation was hostile...White males keep you oppressed; White males are scared of God having a wife or scared of her.

My first thought was "where is the Bishop husband", consigs designs are to undermine the Church, he did a fantastic job by undermining a Bishop via the Bishops wife.

This could also boost the wife's estimation of her husband prowess. If these same men are able to turn God into a white male, think what else they could do!!!

[_sunstoned]

Maybe. But I don't buy his story. Where was his wife during this intimate and sensitive conversation? Where was the bishop? And would the bishop appreciate this conversation that he had with his wife? We need to remember that consig has been claiming that he is considered to be a loose canon in the ward by the bishopric and by the priesthood holders. And yet, here is is over the bishop's house having such a conversation with the bishop's wife.

Criticizing the LDS church. Amazing.

Discussing well known church teachings is not criticizing the church. The dialog does make it sound like the church treats women like second class citizens. But that is only because it is true.

[_huckelberry]

"One should not call the priesthood oppressive to women in the bishop's home in a conversation with his wife."
Why me you seem to be tangled up on the rules of hospitality.
Obviously the wife opened the subject making it an acceptable subject for conversation in her home.

Why me you seem to have no end of judgements of other people. It is sort of amusing. However you seem to have little understanding that sometimes friends are able to speak frankly and that is not an offense. With friends it is possible to speak with the wife without that being an offense. With friends it is possible for a woman to speak of frustration with social rules without frightening the husband.

Why me, are you like inexperienced with friendship? If so judge less and try being helpful. Try resisting the urge to be so ungodly and unrelentingly nasty about others.

[_Drifting]

Consig, it sounds to me as though part of the rationale behind inviting you to dinner was so that this conversation could take place. How open minded of not only the Bishop's wife, but the Bishop himself.

If only more people in the Church, especially higher up the ladder, were encouraging of this kind of dialogue and discussion. The Church would maybe not lose as many members as it currently does.

Bravo to your Bishop.

[_why me]

Consig's story is like the differing accounts of the first vision: First, consig is alone with bish's wife talking about sensitive issues in a very understanding way.

Then in a different version both consig's wife and bishop are there...looking at each other while consig and bish's wife are in discussion about priesthood oppression and heavenly mother. Then in another version, bishop steps out and consig's wife sits there alone pleasantly listening to her husband showing sensitivity to bish'e wife. Then, bishop comes back and gives an aproving nod to consig for what he is saying to his wife.

But the first version left out a lot of detail.

[_Drifting]

Consig's story is like the differing accounts of the first vision: First, consig is alone with bish's wife talking about sensitive issues in a very understanding way.

Then in a different version both consig's wife and bishop are there...looking at each other while consig and bish's wife are in discussion about priesthood oppression and heavenly mother. Then in another version, bishop steps out and consig's wife sits there alone pleasantly listening to her husband showing sensitivity to bish'e wife. Then, bishop comes back and gives an aproving nod to consig for what he is saying to his wife.

But the first version left out a lot of detail.

Are you suggesting that consig's story and the first vision are equal in terms of credibility?

[_malkie]

Consig's story is like the differing accounts of the first vision: First, consig is alone with bish's wife talking about sensitive issues in a very understanding way.

Then in a different version both consig's wife and bishop are there...looking at each other while consig and bish's wife are in discussion about priesthood oppression and heavenly mother. Then in another version, bishop steps out and consig's wife sits there alone pleasantly listening to her husband showing sensitivity to bish'e wife. Then, bishop comes back and gives an aproving nod to consig for what he is saying to his wife.

But the first version left out a lot of detail.

Are you suggesting that consig's story and the first vision are equal in terms of credibility?

That was my first thought, but it can't be - consig's story involves 4 people - at least in principle you could verify what consig says.

With the FV we have only Joseph's word for what happened.

[_Abaddon]

And correlated doctrine is usually pretty brain dead to start with. You can actually piece this together with very little effort. The scriptures make it clear that Jesus the only begotten of the Father. Also, the Mormon temple ordinances fill in the rest of the pieces. Those who are willing to follow God will become Celestial beings, who will form spirit children in the eternities after this life. Now, where do all these spirit children go? The answer is patently obvious: to worlds like ours. What that means is that WE are spirit children of those that have been saved and exalted before this world was formed. This is one eternal cycle and has happened before and will happen again and happens throughout the universe on worlds without number.

I agree with Tobin. When I was TBM, I believed the same thing about heavenly parents.

I felt like I was pretty special too for finding a hidden "pearl" that most members didn't understand.

[_Yoda]

A more reasonable and less speculative answer about Heavenly Mother is:

God is a polygamist and thus we all for the most part have a different Mother in Heaven.

Close, but not quite.

Jesus is the only begotten of the Father. That means that none of us are literal spirit children of the Father. We are spirit children of Celestial beings and so the concept of a Heavenly Mother is a bit problematic. There is the Heavenly Mother that with our Heavenly Father formed the spirit of the Savior. So, in proxy, like the Father, she could be considered our Heavenly Mother. But in a strict sense, our actual Heavenly parents were neither one, but other Celestial parents who have been exalted on worlds before this one was formed. These are our true heavenly parents, who formed our spirits under the direction and command of God.

This sounds a little different from the account I recall reading and hearing elsewhere.

Is that just me, or are we hearing from Tobin's panda informant rather than from the correlated doctrine of the CoJCoLDS?

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!! We have a winner!

[_consiglieri]

Consig, it sounds to me as though part of the rationale behind inviting you to dinner was so that this conversation could take place. How open minded of not only the Bishop's wife, but the Bishop himself.

I think you are totally right about that, Drifting.

Especially so since after we retired to the living room (yes, all four of us, Why Me), she pulled out a piece of paper with questions on it that she said she had written down in order to ask me what I thought.

I asked her why it was she was asking me these questions.

She remembered my teaching in GD class a few years back about blacks receiving the priesthood in 1978 and how there was no revelation prior to that forbidding them the priesthood.

I think she saw a connection between that situation and women not having the priesthood, for some reason . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri