For Coggins Concerning the Role of Women: Probably Off Topic

[_Mister Scratch]

I think that rising from the grave, passing through the veil, and receiving your exaltation are all seperate occurances.

D&C 132: 19-20

"...... and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.


Notice that the line at the beginning there has reference to "They" passing the angels, and the Gods which are set there.

So what? This says nothing about gender. Anyways, the Brethren in the past have clarified the matter for us. Here's Elder Erastus Snow:

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

(emphasis added)

[_Gazelam]

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?"

A Mans role is to be a caretaker over all that is given to him. Adam was asked to name all of the plants and animals on the earth, then he was told to care for them. It was Adam who gave Eve her name, and was then told to care for her. In a marriage a man places his last name over the woman, and is to be her caretaker and provider. The same with his children. It is in this he is to be judged on the day of judgement. Why not then ask the wife to pray for her husband that he might execute righteous and intelligent decision makeing, that all might be well in their household?

I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

A man cannot get into the Celestial Kingdom without his wife either. If a Man calls his wife through the veil and brings her through, he is merely fulfilling his responsibilities towards her. There is no unrighteousness in this, or improper dominion.

[_Mister Scratch]

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?"

A Mans role is to be a caretaker over all that is given to him.

Now you are claiming that women are "possessions" of men? Men have a "custodial" relationship to women? You are just sinking yourself in deeper, Gaz.

Adam was asked to name all of the plants and animals on the earth, then he was told to care for them.

Women are not plants. Nor are they animals. I daresay many women would find the comparison offensive.

It was Adam who gave Eve her name, and was then told to care for her. In a marriage a man places his last name over the woman, and is to be her caretaker and provider. The same with his children. It is in this he is to be judged on the day of judgement. Why not then ask the wife to pray for her husband that he might execute righteous and intelligent decision makeing, that all might be well in their household?

This misses the point. And it really only reinforces my argument that women are second-class citizens within the LDS Church.

I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

A man cannot get into the Celestial Kingdom without his wife either. If a Man calls his wife through the veil and brings her through, he is merely fulfilling his responsibilities towards her. There is no unrighteousness in this, or improper dominion.

[/quote]

This does nothing to counteract the unpalatable fact that men have all the power. (The situation is never reversed---i.e., with the woman summoning up the man. I believe this situation could be reversed via revelation. It would simply be a matter of Pres. Hinckley petitioning Heavenly Father to change the way things are, or to reveal a new order.)

[_Gazelam]

This is from my Celestial Kingdom Thread "Whats in a Name":

As the crown of womanhood is in the giving of life, the crown of Man is in the giving of a name; conferring upon posterity the family name. Ceremony and ritual often accompany this.
By declareing a name upon the child, the Father declares the child his, making the child heir to all that he has, Declareing he will love and protect his progeny because the child is a manifestation of his own flesh and blood.

Children in return are taught to love and respect their parents. To see that the name placed on them is a sacred trust. A rebellious child can be disinherited, cutting the child off from the blessings associated with the name.

That God intended for the Husbands name to be taken on by the wife and children is to be seen from the beginning
Moses 6:9
9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.

Their name was Adam. They became one flesh. The giving of ones name declares a stewardship. You declare that you will care and protect and provide for. Thus Adam placed a name over all things in the Earth, and it was Adam who gave Eve a name.

God the Father placed his name upon Jesus Christ, his only begotten in the flesh, declareing him a rightful heir.

In turn the Savior invited all his earthly brothers and sisters to return to the Heavenly family of which they were once part. To take upon themselves the family name and become heirs to the blessings associated with it.




We all have our responsibilities to perform and our lessons to learn. In case you haven't ever noticed, Men and Women are different, and in more than just physical ways. Together a Man and a Woman complete one another. The Man has his role, and the Woman hers.Both are important.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is from my Celestial Kingdom Thread "Whats in a Name":

As the crown of womanhood is in the giving of life, the crown of Man is in the giving of a name; conferring upon posterity the family name. Ceremony and ritual often accompany this.
By declareing a name upon the child, the Father declares the child his, making the child heir to all that he has, Declareing he will love and protect his progeny because the child is a manifestation of his own flesh and blood.

Children in return are taught to love and respect their parents. To see that the name placed on them is a sacred trust. A rebellious child can be disinherited, cutting the child off from the blessings associated with the name.

That God intended for the Husbands name to be taken on by the wife and children is to be seen from the beginning
Moses 6:9
9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.

Their name was Adam. They became one flesh. The giving of ones name declares a stewardship. You declare that you will care and protect and provide for. Thus Adam placed a name over all things in the Earth, and it was Adam who gave Eve a name.

God the Father placed his name upon Jesus Christ, his only begotten in the flesh, declareing him a rightful heir.

In turn the Savior invited all his earthly brothers and sisters to return to the Heavenly family of which they were once part. To take upon themselves the family name and become heirs to the blessings associated with it.

We all have our responsibilities to perform and our lessons to learn. In case you haven't ever noticed, Men and Women are different, and in more than just physical ways. Together a Man and a Woman complete one another. The Man has his role, and the Woman hers.Both are important.

Fair enough. But how do these "differences" justify the various inequalities one observes within the Church?

[_Gazelam]

Scratch:

Fair enough. But how do these "differences" justify the various inequalities one observes within the Church?

Please be more specific.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch:

Fair enough. But how do these "differences" justify the various inequalities one observes within the Church?

Please be more specific.

This is from my post above:

Another problem is that anyone supporting the Church's party line on this issue (and, for that matter, anyone trying to argue that the Church's position vis-a-vis women is totally kosher) has got a lot to answer for. The people who say that it will happen "In the Lord's time" remind me of Gradualists in the South, who felt that de-segregation should happen over a long time period. The bottom line is that the Church takes a jaundiced view of women, I'm afraid. Women in the LDS Church are essentially seen as second-class citizens. Some problematic elements:
---The Church's opposition to the ERA
---No priesthood for women
---Total ecclesiastical authority in the hands of men, which in turn means that women must appeal to men for: TRs, baptisms, repentance, sealings, cancellation of sealings, blessings, and so on. Further, if a woman suffers abuse at the hands of a priesthood-holding male, the only ecclesiastical leader she can go to will be another priesthood-holding male.
---Lessons taught to LDS girls which present them with the rather draconian, Freudian dilemma of being either "madonnas" or "whores," with no middle ground. (E.g., the infamous "chewed-up gum" lesson.)
---Micromanagement of women's appearances (BKP's recent talk is a prime example), which take on a sort of "Pygmalion" quality: the Brethren remaking all these women in their preferred image.
---Women cannot enter the CK without their husbands' help---in fact, women are dependent upon men for salvation in the LDS Church.
---Various cultural pressures to have many children, despite not being able (or not supposed to) to "preside" in their own homes.
---Implicit recommendations from the Brethren to be stay-at-home moms, rather than to fully explore all the opportunities life has to offer. (Another instance of micromanagement, and pigeonholing.)

I'm sure that I'm overlooking some other problematic aspects of the Church's relationship to women, but these cover some of the major problems, in my opinion. The bottom line is that a person who supports the Church's view on gender roles, also gives implicit approval to everything I've laid out above.

[_harmony]

This is from my Celestial Kingdom Thread "Whats in a Name":

As the crown of womanhood is in the giving of life, the crown of Man is in the giving of a name; conferring upon posterity the family name. Ceremony and ritual often accompany this.
By declareing a name upon the child, the Father declares the child his, making the child heir to all that he has, Declareing he will love and protect his progeny because the child is a manifestation of his own flesh and blood.

Children in return are taught to love and respect their parents. To see that the name placed on them is a sacred trust. A rebellious child can be disinherited, cutting the child off from the blessings associated with the name.

That God intended for the Husbands name to be taken on by the wife and children is to be seen from the beginning
Moses 6:9
9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.

Their name was Adam. They became one flesh. The giving of ones name declares a stewardship. You declare that you will care and protect and provide for. Thus Adam placed a name over all things in the Earth, and it was Adam who gave Eve a name.

God the Father placed his name upon Jesus Christ, his only begotten in the flesh, declareing him a rightful heir.

In turn the Savior invited all his earthly brothers and sisters to return to the Heavenly family of which they were once part. To take upon themselves the family name and become heirs to the blessings associated with it.

We all have our responsibilities to perform and our lessons to learn. In case you haven't ever noticed, Men and Women are different, and in more than just physical ways. Together a Man and a Woman complete one another. The Man has his role, and the Woman hers.Both are important.

The problem I have with your world view is the "only" aspects of it. Women are "only" mothers. "Only" men can give a child a name. There is no "only" in regards to women, Gaz.

Women can be and are more than mothers. Even the women who are stay at home moms are more than just mothers. Men are more than just fathers. Why is that men can be fathers and more in your world, but women are confined to one role? What jaundiced view of genders causes this kind of reasoning?

Women can and do give their name to their children. Children are allowed to choose their last name nowadays. No longer are they assigned a name they must keep whether they want it or not. Your world view is so antiquated as to be not just useless in today's world, but often it's detrimental.