Why BC is a liberal feminist

[_Darth J]

.

Yes, I am a (classical) liberal and a (first and second wave) feminist. Of course today's classical liberals are also known as conservatives...........

Sure you are, bcspace. If there's one thing that is the hallmark of a classical liberal, it's the view that positive law should impose your personal value judgments and religious dogma on society at large.

By the way, I remember your triumphant thread about the Boy Scouts voting to continue keeping out teh gheys, and I look forward to your reasoned, principle-based explanation for why a conservative should favor the BSA getting subsidized by the federal government.

All a woman needs to do is have at least one child to avoid the whole daughter of perdition problem ... right BC?

JFS - Doctrines of Salvation

Incorrect. Non-doctrinal work unless you can find the same or similar in a work published by the Church.

I can find Doctrines of Salvation all over the place cited as an authoritative source in LDS curricula and in talks by General Authorities.

E.g.:

Dallin H. Oaks, October 2008 General Conference

In his writings on the doctrines of salvation, President Joseph Fielding Smith teaches that we partake of the sacrament as our part of commemorating the Savior’s death and sufferings for the redemption of the world. This ordinance was introduced so that we can renew our covenants to serve Him, to obey Him, and to always remember Him. President Smith adds: “We cannot retain the Spirit of the Lord if we do not consistently comply with this commandment” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:341).

Russell M. Nelson, October 2010 Liahona

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “Through the power of this priesthood which Elijah bestowed, husband and wife may be sealed, or married for eternity; children may be sealed to their parents for eternity; thus the family is made eternal, and death does not separate the members.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 2:118.)

David A. Bednar, September 2010 New Era

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught the following principle.

“This work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet like every other doctrine—piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once. When the Angel Moroni came to the Prophet Joseph Smith, one of the things he told him was that the hearts of the children should turn to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children, so that when the Lord should come the earth should not be smitten with a curse. That is significant. That was the first inkling the Prophet had concerning salvation for the dead, and he did not know just what it meant. He had a very vague idea of the meaning of the words that Elijah would come to ‘plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers,’ and I suppose he pondered over it a good deal” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:168).

Since bcspace is all about intellectual honesty and philosophical coherency, I am sure he will happily explain why apostles can cite Doctrine of Salvation as an authority for church teachings, but a person on a message board cannot.

I would just hate it if people got the impression that bcspace offers nothing but sophomoric, ad hoc rhetorical games to his interlocutors.

[_bcspace]

Doesn't matter. Publication is the only identifying factor.

So none of Tempe rituals are doctrine because, even though I've done them, they are not published for me to read. Therefore, not doctrine.

They are indeed published and other official publications which you can read make the esoteric rites doctrine for you. For example they are described, in numerous official publications available to anyone on LDS.org, as covenants you will make as well endowments of knowledge etc. In other words, the doctrine is that the esoteric rites are doctrine.

Sure you are, bcspace. If there's one thing that is the hallmark of a classical liberal, it's the view that positive law should impose your personal value judgments and religious dogma on society at large.

By the way, I remember your triumphant thread about the Boy Scouts voting to continue keeping out teh gheys, and I look forward to your reasoned, principle-based explanation for why a conservative should favor the BSA getting subsidized by the federal government.

I have never stated absolute agreement with all those who call themselves conservative. Nor have I stated agreement with your interpretations. But it remains true that a modern liberal cannot be a good Mormon today.

I can find Doctrines of Salvation all over the place cited as an authoritative source in LDS curricula and in talks by General Authorities.

Indeed. Those particular quotes found in official publications are doctrine. One cannot, however, cite Doctrines of Salvation alone and be sure that particular citation is doctrine. I note that you did not find a doctrinal quote regarding women not being eligible for Perdition by virtue of having had at least one child as was the claim.

[_Bob Loblaw]

They are indeed published and other official publications which you can read make the esoteric rites doctrine for you. For example they are described, in numerous official publications available to anyone on LDS.org, as covenants you will make as well endowments of knowledge etc. In other words, the doctrine is that the esoteric rites are doctrine.

So if it's mentioned at all, everything about it is doctrine. LOL

[_Darth J]

Sure you are, bcspace. If there's one thing that is the hallmark of a classical liberal, it's the view that positive law should impose your personal value judgments and religious dogma on society at large.

By the way, I remember your triumphant thread about the Boy Scouts voting to continue keeping out teh gheys, and I look forward to your reasoned, principle-based explanation for why a conservative should favor the BSA getting subsidized by the federal government.

I have never stated absolute agreement with all those who call themselves conservative. But it remains true that a modern liberal cannot be a good Mormon.

Good to hear, bcspace. Please articulate a rational basis for the government not to recognize same-sex marriage that does not amount to "because Heavenly Father instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden."

Also, please explain the classical liberal principle that validates the federal government subsidizing the BSA.

I can find Doctrines of Salvation all over the place cited as an authoritative source in LDS curricula and in talks by General Authorities.

Indeed. Those particular quotes found in official publications are doctrine. One cannot, however, cite Doctrines of Salvation alone and be sure that particular citation is doctrine. I note that you did not find a doctrinal quote regarding women not being eligible for Perdition by virtue of having had at least one child as was the claim.

That is not responsive to the issue. I would like you to explain the mystical alchemy at work whereby a General Authority or the Correlation Committee can cite unofficial works as an authority to demonstrate what the Church teaches.

[_Nightlion]

My beginning rationale is this. Are all the one third who were cast out male? If they were, it could explain a grave need for plural marriage but I don't think this is the case.

Yes, I am a (classical) liberal and a (first and second wave) feminist. Of course today's classical liberals are also known as conservatives...........

All a woman needs to do is have at least one child to avoid the whole daughter of perdition problem ... right BC?

JFS - Doctrines of Salvation

Incorrect. Non-doctrinal work unless you can find the same or similar in a work published by the Church.

The great anxiety that women in the Bible had when barren is evidence that what Paul was getting at is that women ARE saved after bearing children.

Caution: Not a feminist cup of tea:
1 Timothy 2
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This has always intrigued me as to if the Lord counts childbirth equal to perfect subjection of the born again gospel covenant. As if it were all she could do to bring forth another live into the world. All good that.
We shall see. By and by.

Oh, and No in the proto pre-existence there are only organized intelligences and they are not yet made subject to the seeds of either the spirit body or the natural body. So there is no sexual differentiation in that world BEFORE the foundation of the earth.

You see to agree with Christ meant that you would be getting bodies and that would requires sexual assignments and that would necessitate a loss of your fullness of light and truth. This is what Satan refuse to sacrifice. He wanted his full faculties to be able to supplant God.

So no ratio is relevant counted from this organization. When born to exalted parents, which to us was Adam and Eve, sex would be assigned and those who are diligent to accept the sacrifice with all their heart, would not end up on the confused end of the stick so to speak.

[_Valentinus]

My beginning rationale is this. Are all the one third who were cast out male? If they were, it could explain a grave need for plural marriage but I don't think this is the case.

Yes, I am a (classical) liberal and a (first and second wave) feminist. Of course today's classical liberals are also known as conservatives...........

Incorrect. Non-doctrinal work unless you can find the same or similar in a work published by the Church.

The great anxiety that women in the Bible had when barren is evidence that what Paul was getting at is that women ARE saved after bearing children.

Caution: Not a feminist cup of tea:
1 Timothy 2
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This has always intrigued me as to if the Lord counts childbirth equal to perfect subjection of the born again gospel covenant. As if it were all she could do to bring forth another live into the world. All good that.
We shall see. By and by.

Oh, and No in the proto pre-existence there are only organized intelligences and they are not yet made subject to the seeds of either the spirit body or the natural body. So there is no sexual differentiation in that world BEFORE the foundation of the earth.

You see to agree with Christ meant that you would be getting bodies and that would requires sexual assignments and that would necessitate a loss of your fullness of light and truth. This is what Satan refuse to sacrifice. He wanted his full faculties to be able to supplant God.

So no ratio is relevant counted from this organization. When born to exalted parents, which to us was Adam and Eve, sex would be assigned and those who are diligent to accept the sacrifice with all their heart, would not end up on the confused end of the stick so to speak.

How fascinating and insightful that you quote pseudepigraphal writings to justify your position. Perhaps you should go back and read Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians. The tone expressed by the REAL Paul does not harmonize with the FAKE Paul of Timothy. Get with the program bud...the pastorals are a joke! Unfortunately, they are a joke on the Christian world.

Well played damned deceitful conspirators of the 2nd century!

[_bcspace]

This has always intrigued me as to if the Lord counts childbirth equal to perfect subjection of the born again gospel covenant. As if it were all she could do to bring forth another live into the world. All good that.
We shall see. By and by.

The problem with using this as justification for women not being eligible for Perdition is that the Bible also teaches in several places that one can lose their salvation; that there is no OSAS.

[_Darth J]

Oh, you're back, bcspace.

I would like you to explain the mystical alchemy at work whereby a General Authority or the Correlation Committee can cite unofficial works as an authority to demonstrate what the Church teaches.

[_bcspace]

I would like you to explain the mystical alchemy at work whereby a General Authority or the Correlation Committee can cite unofficial works as an authority to demonstrate what the Church teaches.

The mysteries of the kingdom are not available to you but I can tell you it has to do with delegation.

[_Darth J]

I would like you to explain the mystical alchemy at work whereby a General Authority or the Correlation Committee can cite unofficial works as an authority to demonstrate what the Church teaches.

"I don't want to articulate it because it will make my circular reasoning even more obvious for what it is."