- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Unknown wrote: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?
Perhaps I am confused. It sounds like you are saying that acts of oppression cease to be oppressive if done in the name of Christ and with His (assumed) approval. Please clarify for me.
Roy wrote:
Perhaps I am confused. It sounds like you are saying that acts of oppression cease to be oppressive if done in the name of Christ and with His (assumed) approval. Please clarify for me.Forgive me, I am stumbling with my words. What I am trying to say is that acts of the priesthood carried out in the name of Christ and with His (actual) authority would bless both women and men. It’s a question of faith.
What exactly are the blessings of the priesthood?
Unknown wrote:Roy wrote:
Perhaps I am confused. It sounds like you are saying that acts of oppression cease to be oppressive if done in the name of Christ and with His (assumed) approval. Please clarify for me.Forgive me, I am stumbling with my words. What I am trying to say is that acts of the priesthood carried out in the name of Christ and with His (actual) authority would bless both women and men. It’s a question of faith.
What exactly are the blessings of the priesthood?
Lets suppose that there was something that met all the criteria for oppression. Let’s further suppose that we are told that what seems like oppression will be rewarded in the eternities and will ultimately be seen as a blessing. Suppose that I have faith that this oppressive command comes from Christ and will be for my benefit (though I do not understand the details at the moment).
This sounds like we are justified in calling what is bad to be good as long as it comes from Christ’s church. That if we have enough faith then we can turn anything into a blessing. Truly I am amazed at the power of perception to alter a narrative but this surely can never justify the actions of those that cause the oppression.
I assume that the “blessings of the priesthood” refer to ordinances. This is not to be conflated with the “rights of the priesthood” that do not appear to be available to all.
Roy wrote:I assume that the “blessings of the priesthood” refer to ordinances. This is not to be conflated with the “rights of the priesthood” that do not appear to be available to all.
Exactly.
DC 121:35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
DC 121:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
Does the priesthood oppress? Or bless?
When you have managed to spend 50 years together I think you must have some feelings for each other. It is no small feat to accomplish that Quote:Does the priesthood oppress? Or bless?
Neither. it simply is.
People do both.
Roy wrote: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.
All beautiful things can be perverted. But yes, you make a valid point.
She thought she did, but her actions spoke otherwise. Do we not always hurt the ones we love? It does happen. I regret the occasions on which I did.
Do people in plural marriages love? I suppose they can. However, whether or not each spouse is loved equally or with the same kind of love is another question. In certain cases, this was not so.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Does the priesthood oppress? Or bless?
Neither. it simply is.
People do both.
This.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.