- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think an important question amidst the questions about women in the church is, do you believe these men love there wives? http://youtu.be/3hRWMGDStjchttp://youtu.be/3hRWMGDStjc” class=”bbcode_url”> Over the years, I have been surprised at how many LDS men I meet who love and adore their wives. They find their own wives capable, competent, and bright. Those same men often assume their wives are outliers — that other women are less capable and competent. I find the dicotamy interesting.
Please elaborate on your question when you can. What are you looking for?
I’m not going to watch a video that is over two hours long. Sorry, but it’s not happening. As to your question in the title, are you talking about Mormon men in general – or the men who attended that session – or the FP and Q12 – etc.? No matter the focus of the question, I would say, speaking generally, absolutely. I think active Mormon men tend to love, adore, respect, admire, etc. their wives – and, in many case, ironically, defer to them as being more spiritual and “better people” than they are. I think that last part is largely a cultural thing, but I think it truly is believed, generally.
I also think it’s an important aspect of Mormon life – but I also think it is irrelevant to the broader topic of equality in the Church and what I would like to see at some point in the future.
So, like amateurparent, I’m not sure what you want to discuss – if there is or is not an unstated question or if you want answers to only the question itself.
If you mean do those men who lead the Church love their wives, I imagine the answer is “yes.” And vice versa. I think you would find some variation in different couples’ satisfaction with their marriage state (no personal knowledge about anyone, just supposition) given that satisfaction in marriage and affection between two people are not perfectly correlated. If (by chance) this question swims around the issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood (interpretation: if they really loved their wives, they would consider this issue more seriously), I think you would find that most of these same wives are quite satisfied with the status quo. My own wife who has a master’s degree and has worked most of our married life has expressed to me on several occasions that she has little interest in or sympathy for the Ordain Women movement.
I’m not trying to start a debate about the movement (there are plenty of other threads for that) I just don’t think G.A.’s wives are clamoring for more involvement nor do I believe that unwillingness to consider the possibility of ordaining women automatically means the man involved loves his wife less.
I believe that the men who lead the church do love their wives. I believe that the men who follow their counsel come to love their wives more. The video link in the OP was for the 2014 General Women’s Meeting, first ever. I think the message of that meeting answers many of the questions about women in the church. I think the real question is not, “should women have the priesthood?” It is, “who is at the head of the church? Man? Or Christ?”
If it is man, then excluding women from the priesthood is an act of oppression. If it is Christ, then we can trust the leaders when they say, “the blessings of the priesthood are available for all members of the church.”
But how can you know if it is man or if it is Christ that heads the church?
Does your belief that these men love their wives influence your belief about whose church this is?
Quote:Does your belief that these men love their wives influence your belief about whose church this is?
Not one bit, honestly. I know too many other religious and irreligious people who love their spouses deeply and selflessly (including religious leaders) to have it influence my view about the LDS Church.
Quote:But how can you know if it is man or if it is Christ that heads the church?
or if both do – and if that is the same for more than one denomination (or even religion) – or exactly what parts of the LDS Church are divinely inspired or directed and which parts are cultural and simply the best mortals can do to approximate what God would do as a micro-manager or in an ideal world – etc. etc. etc. That is the $64,000,000,000 question.
Life in mortality is messy, and there are so few obvious, easy-to-understand absolutes for those who aren’t wired to see obvious, easy-to-understand absolutes.
Yes. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote:But how can you know if it is man or if it is Christ that heads the church?
Think of it as parents who’ve left the children in the care of a sitter. Who’s in charge? Well, ultimately the parents, but they’re not here, now, are they? Fortunately, we also have our own relationship with our parents and have some insight into what the house rules are under them vs. under a sitter. That’s just one analogy that I find helpful.
Loving some one and being like minded are two different things. I do believe they love their wives. Enough of them have shared stories to support the idea very much. One of my favorite couples is Richard G. Scott and his wife. He is a widower and remains such. Other GA’s have remarried but not him. Love her. Yes. That’s just one example. I could pull out a few more, but I won’t. The other thing we see is like mindness. Whether the years of time together have secured them to see things as a team or whether they are among the instantly connected couples that happen it matters not. Now they are pretty much joined together in union. I don’t imagine this era’s group of spouses having divergent conversations. In a few decades we may see more of it, but not now.
Old-Timer wrote:or if both do – and if that is the same for more than one denomination (or even religion) – or exactly what parts of the LDS Church are divinely inspired or directed and which parts are cultural and simply the best mortals can do to approximate what God would do as a micro-manager or in an ideal world – etc. etc. etc. That is the $64,000,000,000 question.
Life in mortality is messy, and there are so few obvious, easy-to-understand absolutes for those who aren’t wired to see obvious, easy-to-understand absolutes.
That is a good point. I do appreciate that the church doesn’t claim exclusivity of the truth, but teaches that every people in every age has received at least some inspiration and truth from God.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Think of it as parents who’ve left the children in the care of a sitter. Who’s in charge? Well, ultimately the parents, but they’re not here, now, are they? Fortunately, we also have our own relationship with our parents and have some insight into what the house rules are under them vs. under a sitter. That’s just one analogy that I find helpful.
Beautiful analogy.
Love is ultimately an internal experience, and perhaps only they can answer that question fully themselves. SamBee wrote:Love is ultimately an internal experience, and perhaps only they can answer that question fully themselves.
I remember the mother who drowned her own children in the lake professing to love her children. I could never understand her actions but who would I be to say that she did not love these children. I must take her word that she does.
As to the issue of “equality,” I think back to the women’s sufferage movement. Did the men in the U.S. love their wives who were denied the right to vote. I believe that they did – yet we didn’t see very many men marching with the sufferagettes.
Quote:As to the issue of “equality,” I think back to the women’s sufferage movement. Did the men in the U.S. love their wives who were denied the right to vote. I believe that they did – yet we didn’t see very many men marching with the sufferagettes.
They loved their status quo, too. Did they love their wives? Yes. But they also loved hot dinner on the table after work and people making a fuss over them when they got home from work, and an environment in which women felt obligated to have sex with their husbands.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:As to the issue of “equality,” I think back to the women’s sufferage movement. Did the men in the U.S. love their wives who were denied the right to vote. I believe that they did – yet we didn’t see very many men marching with the sufferagettes.
They loved their status quo, too. Did they love their wives? Yes. But they also loved hot dinner on the table after work and people making a fuss over them when they got home from work, and an environment in which women felt obligated to have sex with their husbands.
Agreed. Which is why:
Unknown wrote:I think the real question is, “who is at the head of the church? Man? Or Christ?”
If it is man, then excluding women from the priesthood is an act of oppression. If it is Christ, then we can trust the leaders when they say, “the blessings of the priesthood are available for all members of the church.”
So, how can you know if it is man or if it is Christ that heads the church?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.