DiscussMormonism.com

Stem wrote:I like to feel encouraged with the Church, even sitting on the outside. I'm glad they are trying to address the issue of women's roles in some sense, and I see some of these changes reflecting that. Maybe in this refinement they are moving out of apostasy and we'll see a true restoration take place some day in the future. Ok...too hopeful, but still I feel encouraged when the church changes to accommodate. I don't get the point in trying to get it to go back to awful traditions.

Putting on my Liberal Mormon Hat, I would agree that this hat tip to feminism in the newly released edition of the Mormon Endowment 2.0 or 6.3 or 10.5 which ever release it now is, is a step in the right direction for woman. My wife was thrilled that she will no longer have to veil her face or promise to concede management of her life over to her apostate husband...she can now completely bypass me and just work directly with her god.

Are we sure we don't have Prophetess Wendy and her handmaiden Sheri to thank for these revelations? I understand amazing harmonic convergences are possible with a holy menage a twat.

I think it interesting that any such ordinances had to have the approval of the First Presidency, which of course includes Presidents Nelson and Oaks.

And yet the changes appear to be responsive to women's issues of feeling treated unequally in the endowment.

What are we to make of this?

Maksutov wrote:Are we sure we don't have Prophetess Wendy and her handmaiden Sheri to thank for these revelations? I understand amazing harmonic convergences are possible with a holy menage a twat.

This is one of the revelations Nelson is dying to give to the people. However, they aren't ready for such intense holiness. SSM is ok with Nelly as long as it is FFM.

consiglieri wrote:I think it interesting that any such ordinances had to have the approval of the First Presidency, which of course includes Presidents Nelson and Oaks.

And yet the changes appear to be responsive to women's issues of feeling treated unequally in the endowment.

What are we to make of this?

These changes can now be added to the long list of other changes made within the Mormon church that were claimed as revelation but were coincidentally ill timed to also coincide with societal pressures coming from forces outside of the Mormon governing body.

I do find it interesting that Modern Revelation ® seems to take place at the very time the church is feeling these social pressures from sources outside of its governing body of 15 men. Polygamy? Yup. Priesthood Ban? Yup. Female Gen Conference Prayers? Yup. Removing elements offensive to women in endowment? Yup. In fact the only societal pressure that Modern Revelation ® doesn't "yet" seem to have caved to is LGBQT equality within the church...on that issue Modern Revelation ® has completely dug in its heels. Are these mere coincidences? I don't think so.

Craig Paxton wrote:Putting on my Liberal Mormon Hat, I would agree that this hat tip to feminism in the newly released edition of the Mormon Endowment 2.0 or 6.3 or 10.5 which ever release it now is, is a step in the right direction for woman. My wife was thrilled that she will no longer have to veil her face or promise to concede management of her life over to her apostate husband...she can now completely bypass me and just work directly with her god.

my god what a relief for her.

I can't help it. I just listened to Bill Reel interviewing John Shelby Spong and find that kind of approach to religion compelling. I hate religion and yet want it, at various times. The only way religion wins out for me is to take a very liberal approach to it.

consiglieri wrote:I think it interesting that any such ordinances had to have the approval of the First Presidency, which of course includes Presidents Nelson and Oaks.

And yet the changes appear to be responsive to women's issues of feeling treated unequally in the endowment.

What are we to make of this?

We're to applaud it, hoping to encourage more fo the same. once changes happen it's hard to go back.

consiglieri wrote:I think it interesting that any such ordinances had to have the approval of the First Presidency, which of course includes Presidents Nelson and Oaks.

And yet the changes appear to be responsive to women's issues of feeling treated unequally in the endowment.

What are we to make of this?

in my opinion, it was not to appear responsive to women's feelings. It was responsive to negative publicity as to the egregious treatment of women.

Exiled wrote:

Maksutov wrote:Are we sure we don't have Prophetess Wendy and her handmaiden Sheri to thank for these revelations? I understand amazing harmonic convergences are possible with a holy menage a twat.

This is one of the revelations Nelson is dying to give to the people. However, they aren't ready for such intense holiness. SSM is ok with Nelly as long as it is FFM.

You guys are killing me.

Craig Paxton wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:Well, apostasy is a flexible concept. BY said the endowment needed refinement, so maybe the new covenants are refined.

If the covenants I promised to keep are different from the covenants both my parents made and still different from those my children made and now different from those my grandchildren might make...which of us swore to keep the correct covenants? What does this say about the Mormon God who despite claiming to have never changing covenants keeps changing his covenants. *

* yeah it’s all ____, but I’m playing as if it were actually from a God.

This is why I am so grateful for not having any temple experience. It would simply make no sense and boggle my already boggled mind on what to accept and/or not. We must realize, however, that the very same element exists..and that is fear. An instilled fear still remains and that is all that is necessary.