Indeed. For example, there is no indication at all that women will be standing in stalls while men stand at stud, constantly mating and squeezing out children as is the strawman vision created by such statements as..."if all they were suppose to do is be a "pretty little wife" and birth babies for eternity?" (Liz dressed it up a bit). That is the vision of the eternities antiMormons intend to create, but it does not seem to match the vision actually taught in the LDS Church.
Then what is the vision, BC? I was quoting Gaz's perspective as a TBM who has a testimony of this principle. I don't think I misquoted or misunderstood him. If I did, I hope that he clarifies it.
I'm serious, BC. I'm not some feminist just trying to pose an argument here. You and I are the same age. I've been a member of this Church just as long as you have, and from our private conversations, we have had fairly similar educational background, both in secular school and religion.
I'm being sincere when I say that I don't understand how a God...a Father in Heaven, who supposedly loves his daughters, and has given them talents, intelligence, etc. could deem them as "gifts" to his sons?
Does it sit well to think of one of your daughters in a plural marriage relationship?
On the one hand, the Church teaches partnership in marriage and how important emotional intimacy is, and then there is plural marriage, which is supposedly an eternal law.
Miss Taken wrote:bc space....you don't half spew some rubbish sometimes.
My goodness I am SO glad I DIDN'T marry a Mormon man. Your attitude sucks...
In my opinion of course!
[MODERATOR NOTE: Disagreeing is perfectly fine, but in the Celestial Forum, please disagree only in a truly Celestial fashion. Specifically, "your attitude sucks" would be a blanket statement best avoided here.
Thank you!]
Apologies Moderator for my emotional response. Can you suggest how I could re-phrase 'your attitude sucks'....Honestly... I can't think of one more appropriate? I'm (sincerely) open to suggestions..!!
Femminism raises it's ugly head here too as such always seem to be threatened by the concept of a family with a male head of household. In this regard, the femminist is not unlike those who propose/encourage/justify sexual promiscuity. They unreasonably fear to loose what they don't use in profligate fashion.
Okay ...deep breath....here goes...
BC. Can you explain what you understand by the term 'feminism' since it appears that your understanding of it would differ to mine in some significant ways.
Do you see 'feminism' as one movement with one overall ideal, or are you willing to recognise that 'feminism' has many facets and elements to it, and that not all 'feminists' think or act the same way, or indeed have the same goals.
Do you not subscribe to the idea that men and women are companions and supports for each other?
Do you feel it is really necessary to compare feminism (whatever you mean by it, I'm not sure) to sexual promiscuity.
Do you feel that sexual promiscuity transcends gender and encompasses both in equal measure, with the woman bearing the brunt of the responsibility should offspring result in said promiscuity.
I just have no idea where you are coming from with your highly offensive statements.
[MODERATOR NOTE: Disagreeing is perfectly fine, but in the Celestial Forum, please disagree only in a truly Celestial fashion. Specifically, "your attitude sucks" would be a blanket statement best avoided here.
Thank you!]
Apologies Moderator for my emotional response. Can you suggest how I could re-phrase 'your attitude sucks'....Honestly... I can't think of one more appropriate? I'm (sincerely) open to suggestions..!!
Sure. In the Celestial Forum, such a phrase could've been reworded as, "In my opinion, your attitude on this subject leaves much to be desired."
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
To be fair, this crude visual by BC is rather borderline for the Celestial Forum as well, in my opinion.
BC Space wrote:Indeed. For example, there is no indication at all that women will be standing in stalls while men stand at stud, constantly mating and squeezing out children as is the strawman vision created by such statements as..."if all they were suppose to do is be a "pretty little wife" and birth babies for eternity?" (Liz dressed it up a bit). That is the vision of the eternities antiMormons intend to create, but it does not seem to match the vision actually taught in the LDS Church.
A thought for a moment from a talk by Hugh Nibley:
"No one supposes for one moment that in heaven the angels are speculating, that they are building railroads
and factories, taking advantage one of another, gathering up the substance there is in heaven to aggrandize
themselves, and that they live on the same principle that we are in the habit of doing. . . . No sectarian Christian
in the world believes this; they believe that the inhabitants of heaven live as a family, that their faith, interests
and pursuits have one end in view—the glory of God and their own salvation, that they may receive more and
more. . . . We all believe this, and suppose we go to work and imitate them as far as we can. 47
It is not too soon to begin right now. What are the things of the eternities that we should consider even now?
They are the things that no one ever tires of doing, things in themselves lovely and desirable. Surprisingly, the
things of the eternities are the very things to which the university is supposed to be dedicated. In the Zion of
God, in the celestial and eternal order, where there is no death, there will be no morticians; where there is no
sickness, there will be no more doctors; where there is no decay, there will be no dentists; where there is no
litigation, there will be no lawyers; where there is no buying and selling, there will be no merchants; where there
is no insecurity, there will be no insurance; where there is no money, there will be no banks; where there is no
crime, there will be no jails, no police; where there are no excess goods, there will be no advertising, no wars,
no armies, and so on and so on.
But this happy condition is not limited to celestial realms of the future; it actually has been achieved by mortal
men on this earth a number of times, and it represents the only state of society of which God approves. All the
things that are passing away today are the very essence of "the economy," but they will be missing in Zion.
They are already obsolescent; every one of them is make-work of a temporary and artificial nature for which an
artificial demand must be created. Moreover, few people are really dedicated to them, for as soon as a man has
acquired a superquota of power and gain, he cuts out and leaves the scene of his triumphs, getting as far away
as he can from the ugly world he has helped create—preferably to Tahiti. The race has shown us often its
capacity to do without these things we now find indispensable:......."
(Zeal without knowledge, Oct 24, 2003)
In regards to the relationship between a Man and a Woman in the state of marriage, is a wife now at this time who is a "stay at home mom" considered a baby making machine? Of coarce not. Think of the statement above by Hugh Nibley and imagine for yourself what heaven will be like and what we will do there. The things that will be unimportant there as compared to how we view things now in thig continually rotting temporal world. Family will be what is important, and their progression and growth. Things here are a pale comparison. How would your life change if you wanted for nothing? If anything you wanted could be created on a whim, what would be important to you then?
Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Gazelam wrote:In regards to the relationship between a Man and a Woman in the state of marriage, is a wife now at this time who is a "stay at home mom" considered a baby making machine? Of coarce not. Think of the statement above by Hugh Nibley and imagine for yourself what heaven will be like and what we will do there. The things that will be unimportant there as compared to how we view things now in thig continually rotting temporal world. Family will be what is important, and their progression and growth. Things here are a pale comparison. How would your life change if you wanted for nothing? If anything you wanted could be created on a whim, what would be important to you then?
Gaz
The problem is still that you have male Gods with multiple female partners, which in itself makes the female partners subordinate. There's no equal partnership or even "help meet" in a polygynous relationship. Doesn't sound like heaven to me.
Gazelam wrote:In regards to the relationship between a Man and a Woman in the state of marriage, is a wife now at this time who is a "stay at home mom" considered a baby making machine? Of coarce not. Think of the statement above by Hugh Nibley and imagine for yourself what heaven will be like and what we will do there. The things that will be unimportant there as compared to how we view things now in thig continually rotting temporal world. Family will be what is important, and their progression and growth. Things here are a pale comparison. How would your life change if you wanted for nothing? If anything you wanted could be created on a whim, what would be important to you then?
Gaz
The problem is still that you have male Gods with multiple female partners, which in itself makes the female partners subordinate. There's no equal partnership or even "help meet" in a polygynous relationship. Doesn't sound like heaven to me.
Exactly! Thank you for "getting it", Runtu! :)
Gaz...I'm not discounting what you're saying. And, for the record, BC's debased description was NOT the same as mine.
But how can you have an intimate, emotional partnership with someone who is also sharing an intimate emotional partnership with someone else? And don't give me the bit about, "you have more than one child...do you love one more than the other." The relationship between husband and wife is a completely different dynamic. Let's not pretend it isn't.
Let's turn it around. Would you, Gaz, or BC, or any of the other guys here be comfortable if the situation was reversed. If God commanded that your wife was required to take another husband, how would you feel? Would it be something you could accept? REALLY think about it.
Don't use the old cop out of "it's a non-sequitar because it will never happen."
Do me a favor and seriously imagine yourself in that situation. How would you handle it?
Does imagining this type of situation at least give you guys SOME insight about what women in the Church are concerned about regarding this?
Let's turn it around. Would you, Gaz, or BC, or any of the other guys here be comfortable if the situation was reversed. If God commanded that your wife was required to take another husband, how would you feel? Would it be something you could accept? REALLY think about it.
Don't use the old cop out of "it's a non-sequitar because it will never happen."
Do me a favor and seriously imagine yourself in that situation. How would you handle it?
Does imagining this type of situation at least give you guys SOME insight about what women in the Church are concerned about regarding this?
Personally, as I think I have matured emotionally, this view point was a real deal killer for plural marriage. There is not a snowballs' chance in "you no where" that I could be happy sharing my spouse with another man. Just ain't gonna happen.
Of course I am sure there are those who will state that one needs to be really spiritual to do so, or this is the ultimate test and if God commands....
Think PEOPLE! We are not beasts! Think Gaz. Would you want to be one of five or six husbands for your wife? Be honest now.
The irony is that Joseph Smith had to break several core "laws of God" and Mormon beliefs in order to fulfill one socially repugnant and unnatural one:
1) Love your neighbor as yourself
2) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
3) Thou shalt not steal.
4) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
5) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass (or hers), nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
6) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.