I don’t think I was clear about what I was saying about E. Oaks’ PH talk from April 2014. The way it defines women and PH is that women are using the authority of PH in callings, but are not given keys to PH. In families, women and men procreating is a PH function. Women create the bodies for children, and men bring the . . . I guess priesthood. :wtf: Anyway, it’s very similar to the temple construct. Men will be priests to God; women will be priestesses to their husbands. Men have power from God; women have power from their husbands. Men borrow God’s power and light; women borrow their husband’s power and light. Men covenant to obey God; women covenant to obey (now hearken unto) their husbands. This is very similar to BY’s view that the more wives and children he had, the more glory he had in his future kingdoms. Women are eternally subordinate and interchangeable in this model. It’s also like the umbrella model for the PH. The husband is the umbrella, the wife under that, the children under that. E. Oaks says we should focus on our responsibilities and not our rights. That’s pretty much the argument of the privileged on every topic. I suppose I’m reading between the lines a lot. I didn’t find his talk to be very comforting or helpful in general, particularly not since every TBM I know was crowing about how he pwned the feminists and now those uppity women would shut the hell up and get back in the kitchen.
