That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Sure. A lot of belief has to do with personal interpretation. Two people can look at the same event and believe two different things, one thinking it's a miracle, the other thinking it's not.
If we had a lot of obvious miracles that couldn't be easily explained away by science, though, it wouldn't be hard to believe in God.
If all the members of a certain religion never had cancer, or were healed from it without medical intervention, it would be hard not to look at that religion as important or perhaps "the one true religion" - particularly if you have cancer.
Statements like this make me feel uneasy. On the one hand I do believe that we need to do all we can to save ourselves from whatever predicament we find ourselves in, and to some degree the self-fulfilling success exists where if you do all you can and then leave the rest to God you will find more success than the person who does nothing more than leave everything to God. I guess it's just the "prioritizes" bit, though, as I believe God is no respecter of persons, but conversely I also believe that obedience brings blessings.
However, that's more a consequence - it's not that an obedient person is held in higher regard, but they suffer the consequences of their obedience - recieving helpful blessings - in the same way someone else would suffer the consequences of their disobedience - loss of blessings.
If we had a lot of obvious miracles that couldn't be easily explained away by science, though, it wouldn't be hard to believe in God.
If all the members of a certain religion never had cancer, or were healed from it without medical intervention, it would be hard not to look at that religion as important or perhaps "the one true religion" - particularly if you have cancer.
Statements like this make me feel uneasy. On the one hand I do believe that we need to do all we can to save ourselves from whatever predicament we find ourselves in, and to some degree the self-fulfilling success exists where if you do all you can and then leave the rest to God you will find more success than the person who does nothing more than leave everything to God. I guess it's just the "prioritizes" bit, though, as I believe God is no respecter of persons, but conversely I also believe that obedience brings blessings.
However, that's more a consequence - it's not that an obedient person is held in higher regard, but they suffer the consequences of their obedience - recieving helpful blessings - in the same way someone else would suffer the consequences of their disobedience - loss of blessings.
https://happiness-seekers.com/2018/...d-that-will-change-the-way-you-see-womanhood/
One of the areas I believe the LDS church differs from some christian sects is that we do not believe that women are intended to be subservient to men. The article above has an interesting point about this that appears to me to be closely aligned with LDS doctrine.
"So, the next time you read Genesis 2:18 and you are tempted to imagine a submissive housekeeper, instead think of a warrior with a drawn sword. Think of a change maker. Think of a leader. "
One of the areas I believe the LDS church differs from some christian sects is that we do not believe that women are intended to be subservient to men. The article above has an interesting point about this that appears to me to be closely aligned with LDS doctrine.
"So, the next time you read Genesis 2:18 and you are tempted to imagine a submissive housekeeper, instead think of a warrior with a drawn sword. Think of a change maker. Think of a leader. "
I usually stay out of this conversation, because while I'm not religious, I don't fault anyone for their religion, which I've probably said before. But bringing up women and the LDS... ehh. That's a hard one to swallow. The LDS church has always been pretty strictly patriarchal.
Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/01/our-sisters-from-the-beginning?lang=eng
Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/01/our-sisters-from-the-beginning?lang=eng
Last edited:
-
2
- Show all
Yes, the church leadership consists mostly of men, and it’s men who preside over the church. The priesthood is only given to men.
I believe we are led by Jesus Christ through continuing revelation to a modern prophet, and that at this time this is how the church is to be run. It’s possible that may change in the future, but it’s not something I’m counting on or hanging my testimony on.
I’m not going going to try to defend statements made in the 1970’s, though. That was the revelation needed for that time. If you read more modern statements you’re likely to find a different perspective.
I wanted to call attention to this blog post because it represents what I understand he doctrine to be - and keep in mind that there’s frequently a difference between doctrine and culture or practice.
I’m not going to try to defend the patriarchal nature of the church at this time anyway, it’s something I don’t feel I understand well enough to teach.
That said, has anyone read the blog post I linked? What are your thoughts on it? Does it make sense, or does it still somehow cast the sexes as unequal? Does it seem in line with what Jesus taught?
I believe we are led by Jesus Christ through continuing revelation to a modern prophet, and that at this time this is how the church is to be run. It’s possible that may change in the future, but it’s not something I’m counting on or hanging my testimony on.
I’m not going going to try to defend statements made in the 1970’s, though. That was the revelation needed for that time. If you read more modern statements you’re likely to find a different perspective.
I wanted to call attention to this blog post because it represents what I understand he doctrine to be - and keep in mind that there’s frequently a difference between doctrine and culture or practice.
I’m not going to try to defend the patriarchal nature of the church at this time anyway, it’s something I don’t feel I understand well enough to teach.
That said, has anyone read the blog post I linked? What are your thoughts on it? Does it make sense, or does it still somehow cast the sexes as unequal? Does it seem in line with what Jesus taught?
I admit that I had not read it when I posted my original reply. I have now, and while I am not exactly a biblical scholar (or even a believer) I will give feedback, since you asked for it.
Does it make sense? If you are interpreting the old testament literally, and specifically through the lens of Mormon belief, then sure. That's kind of a broad subject and another discussion entirely, and one I feel unqualified to partake in.
Does it still cast the sexes as unequal? Unfortunately yes. The LDS, and many Christian and other religious sects similar to it, have long held an unequal view of the sexes. The LDS may view them as COMPLIMENTARY, but that is not equal. From a Mormon perspective it may seem perfectly valid, that men are put on earth to serve God and women are put on earth to serve men. Even using the definition of serve that this blog post is using, as a champion and source of strength, it is still defining women purely on their relationship and role to men. A lieutenant to a commander may be a well respected officer, but that role is still wholly defined by the commander they are... lieutenanting for? That's not a word, let's move on.
Does it seem in line with what Jesus taught? Again, I know you're not directing this question at me specifically, but you know, I like Jesus well enough. I do think he had some good ideas, and I do feel I grasp his message. This blog is mostly to do with the Old Testament, which I know through Mormon and Christian belief is still about Jesus in a retcony sort of way, but the messages in the old and new testament have always come across to me as wildly different. As far as I know Jesus never helped anyone kill a bunch of Philistines. So we'll table this one as a discussion for another time.
Does it make sense? If you are interpreting the old testament literally, and specifically through the lens of Mormon belief, then sure. That's kind of a broad subject and another discussion entirely, and one I feel unqualified to partake in.
Does it still cast the sexes as unequal? Unfortunately yes. The LDS, and many Christian and other religious sects similar to it, have long held an unequal view of the sexes. The LDS may view them as COMPLIMENTARY, but that is not equal. From a Mormon perspective it may seem perfectly valid, that men are put on earth to serve God and women are put on earth to serve men. Even using the definition of serve that this blog post is using, as a champion and source of strength, it is still defining women purely on their relationship and role to men. A lieutenant to a commander may be a well respected officer, but that role is still wholly defined by the commander they are... lieutenanting for? That's not a word, let's move on.
Does it seem in line with what Jesus taught? Again, I know you're not directing this question at me specifically, but you know, I like Jesus well enough. I do think he had some good ideas, and I do feel I grasp his message. This blog is mostly to do with the Old Testament, which I know through Mormon and Christian belief is still about Jesus in a retcony sort of way, but the messages in the old and new testament have always come across to me as wildly different. As far as I know Jesus never helped anyone kill a bunch of Philistines. So we'll table this one as a discussion for another time.
You can't separate the theology of mormonism from the power structure while still saying that the structure of the church is divinely ordained. If the leaders are actually just following the word of god, god could've easily said "women can be leaders too." That means that either mormon god thinks women's purpose is to serve men, or the church is being run by charlatans. Given how conveniently timed "god's" decision to make black people human beings, I suspect that there will be another convenient revelation when the decision to not allow women to be priests becomes too much of a PR problem for the church.
And if this sounds like I'm being a dick about your religion, its because I am. I'd be fine with you believing this obvious garbage, but your religion clearly informs so much about your bigotry towards gay people, women, and other minorities. You are a worse person for it, and while I suspect you will never change, I sincerely hope that each of your numerous children figures it out and leaves the faith, so it can die out with the current generation. Mormonism is far from the only patriarchal religion out there, but it is one of the most toxic in this country given the centralized structure behind it.
And if this sounds like I'm being a dick about your religion, its because I am. I'd be fine with you believing this obvious garbage, but your religion clearly informs so much about your bigotry towards gay people, women, and other minorities. You are a worse person for it, and while I suspect you will never change, I sincerely hope that each of your numerous children figures it out and leaves the faith, so it can die out with the current generation. Mormonism is far from the only patriarchal religion out there, but it is one of the most toxic in this country given the centralized structure behind it.
-
1
- Show all
I feel it is a bit of a trite answer to a complex question. It seems a bit cherry-picked. That said, I think that Christianity in general suffers an image problem of women as submissive to men, and that part of that is self-inflicted, and part of it is a culture of arrogant agnostics who know just enough about the Bible to be authoritatively ignorant. I don't believe that God's law assigns women to subservience, although I think it has been interpreted and enforced that way for millennia, and there are plenty of instances in the Bible where is stated outright (especially the legal books of the Old Testament). However, I think it is important to read those things in context, which is to consider the author, the time, the place, and the purpose of the writing. There's plenty in the Bible that doesn't square with history, but before we throw it away, I do feel we owe it a thorough look into why.
To the article more specifically: I admit I don't meditate much on Adam and Eve as human beings. For one, I believe they are a literary device to communicate a truth about humanity, not literal historical persons. But the second reason I don't meditate on them is that I don't connect with them as characters. I often ponder (heretically) whether I believe in Original Sin. I think I have plenty of sin as it is, and I'm not sure Original Sin squares with my understanding of the world. So this article challenged me to re-view some ideas about Adam and Eve as human characters.
If Adam is the first man, then he also experienced the first human emotions, including loneliness. That God is Trinitarian, but also all knowing, He would have anticipated Adam's need for a companion. Eve would have been the perfect complement to Adam - which also means Eve needs Adam (i.e. he is also a help for her). It was never supposed to be a hierarchy. I even think it is significant that Eve is made from the side of Adam - not from his head or feet. The side. Parallel. Equal.
The author of this article is obviously versed in the languages of the Bible, and has a clear linguistic grasp I lack. Perhaps because of this, I should not be so quick to dismiss his answer as 'trite' but I'm much more won over by the completeness of Adam and Eve as a couple, partnership, etc, as indicative of God's view of the role of women and men, than I am by the use of a military-style term in the creation of woman. On the other hand, the Bible is an incredibly dense and complex piece of literature, and I do believe that one reason for the great deal of repetition in stories, but by different authors, is that people will find meaning in different ways. Perhaps the use of this particular word for Eve, and also for military occasions, is intentional, or at least, intentional enough to inspire the linguistically-minded believer.
Below is not really about the article, but my thoughts on motherhood-as-strength from my own opinion.
I'm a recent return to the Catholic Church, which is perceived (fairly) as a heavily patriarchal religion. It reserves almost all authority for men, and only men may enter ecclesiastical roles. However, I would make the case that as an institution, in its best and most proper form, the Catholic Church is also (rightly) the most feminine Christian denomination. The Church is called the Bride of Christ and I think that is not an insignificant name.
This plays on many traditional feminine characteristics: nurturing, communication, patience, deference. But there is space here also for power and authority and strength.
I had very traditional parents, but I never saw my father as the 'one in charge' and my mother as some sort of secondary power. Certainly they were always a team in parenting my siblings and I. But they were also definitely a team with roles. My mother was more emotional, and responding to our emotional sufferings, and even our physical injuries in a very comforting way. But it wasn't coddling - it was strong. It was the "you can bear this, and go forward" model, as opposed to my father's more masculine and sang-froid style of "no blood, don't count." And we needed both styles!
Catholics often take flak from other Christian denominations for the emphasis we place on a different mother in the Bible - Mary, the Mother of Jesus. There is perhaps no more beautiful sculpture in the world, to my eyes, than that of Michelangelo's Pieta:
I am not a mother, and I haven't any children, but I do believe that the Marian story is in every mother's life. Suddenly you are called upon to bring this incredible being of complexity beyond your understanding into the world - suddenly all of the potential and all of the suffering of this new person is your duty; it's going to be so overwhelmingly important and challenging you will sacrifice much of your own person for this. And you have to realize that the world is a difficult place, full of pain, full of loss, full of suffering, and indeed, full of evil. But still you say yes to this request. And then you do your damn best, and even that results in suffering for this child! And maybe all of that weight is like Mary holding her murdered son's body, maybe all of that fear is cast in marble in that statue.
I can't begin to imagine the fortitude and strength that would take.
To the article more specifically: I admit I don't meditate much on Adam and Eve as human beings. For one, I believe they are a literary device to communicate a truth about humanity, not literal historical persons. But the second reason I don't meditate on them is that I don't connect with them as characters. I often ponder (heretically) whether I believe in Original Sin. I think I have plenty of sin as it is, and I'm not sure Original Sin squares with my understanding of the world. So this article challenged me to re-view some ideas about Adam and Eve as human characters.
If Adam is the first man, then he also experienced the first human emotions, including loneliness. That God is Trinitarian, but also all knowing, He would have anticipated Adam's need for a companion. Eve would have been the perfect complement to Adam - which also means Eve needs Adam (i.e. he is also a help for her). It was never supposed to be a hierarchy. I even think it is significant that Eve is made from the side of Adam - not from his head or feet. The side. Parallel. Equal.
The author of this article is obviously versed in the languages of the Bible, and has a clear linguistic grasp I lack. Perhaps because of this, I should not be so quick to dismiss his answer as 'trite' but I'm much more won over by the completeness of Adam and Eve as a couple, partnership, etc, as indicative of God's view of the role of women and men, than I am by the use of a military-style term in the creation of woman. On the other hand, the Bible is an incredibly dense and complex piece of literature, and I do believe that one reason for the great deal of repetition in stories, but by different authors, is that people will find meaning in different ways. Perhaps the use of this particular word for Eve, and also for military occasions, is intentional, or at least, intentional enough to inspire the linguistically-minded believer.
Below is not really about the article, but my thoughts on motherhood-as-strength from my own opinion.
I'm a recent return to the Catholic Church, which is perceived (fairly) as a heavily patriarchal religion. It reserves almost all authority for men, and only men may enter ecclesiastical roles. However, I would make the case that as an institution, in its best and most proper form, the Catholic Church is also (rightly) the most feminine Christian denomination. The Church is called the Bride of Christ and I think that is not an insignificant name.
This plays on many traditional feminine characteristics: nurturing, communication, patience, deference. But there is space here also for power and authority and strength.
I had very traditional parents, but I never saw my father as the 'one in charge' and my mother as some sort of secondary power. Certainly they were always a team in parenting my siblings and I. But they were also definitely a team with roles. My mother was more emotional, and responding to our emotional sufferings, and even our physical injuries in a very comforting way. But it wasn't coddling - it was strong. It was the "you can bear this, and go forward" model, as opposed to my father's more masculine and sang-froid style of "no blood, don't count." And we needed both styles!
Catholics often take flak from other Christian denominations for the emphasis we place on a different mother in the Bible - Mary, the Mother of Jesus. There is perhaps no more beautiful sculpture in the world, to my eyes, than that of Michelangelo's Pieta:
I am not a mother, and I haven't any children, but I do believe that the Marian story is in every mother's life. Suddenly you are called upon to bring this incredible being of complexity beyond your understanding into the world - suddenly all of the potential and all of the suffering of this new person is your duty; it's going to be so overwhelmingly important and challenging you will sacrifice much of your own person for this. And you have to realize that the world is a difficult place, full of pain, full of loss, full of suffering, and indeed, full of evil. But still you say yes to this request. And then you do your damn best, and even that results in suffering for this child! And maybe all of that weight is like Mary holding her murdered son's body, maybe all of that fear is cast in marble in that statue.
I can't begin to imagine the fortitude and strength that would take.
-
1
- Show all
Ok. If I understand you correctly, your issue is that the article is still talking about women's relationship to men. That, of course, is the entire point of the article, to disabuse people of the notion that women are subservient or lessor.
There are plenty of articles about women and the relationship with God, or women independent of any relationships, and I suppose you'd be more interested in those.
I read the following:
"Eve is described with a word that everywhere else in the Old Testament is only used for virtually two purposes 1) to describe God when he is coming to stand with Israel against its enemies or 2) when other nations come to march with the soldiers of Israel as they face their foes (list of “ezer” usages found here)."
And I don't see women being compared to second in commands, but to God and to another army.
I can understand this perspective and logical chain, but I disagree with it because it relies on a few foundations I don't agree with:
* That the Prophet and other church leaders are infallible
* That God requires that His church be instantly/immediately/constantly perfect
There are plenty of articles about women and the relationship with God, or women independent of any relationships, and I suppose you'd be more interested in those.
I read the following:
"Eve is described with a word that everywhere else in the Old Testament is only used for virtually two purposes 1) to describe God when he is coming to stand with Israel against its enemies or 2) when other nations come to march with the soldiers of Israel as they face their foes (list of “ezer” usages found here)."
And I don't see women being compared to second in commands, but to God and to another army.
I can understand this perspective and logical chain, but I disagree with it because it relies on a few foundations I don't agree with:
* That the Prophet and other church leaders are infallible
* That God requires that His church be instantly/immediately/constantly perfect
Sorry, I explained poorly I guess. I was under the impression the story would be about women and how they shared equality with men, not about men justifying terminology in an effort to appear to share power equally. This didn't really dissolve the notion that this was written by and for men, though. Ultimately having one woman described in a positive light doesn't undo the many instances of sexism and inequality throughout the rest of the bible.
While it would be nice if this was a step in the direction of religion in general pushing for equality among the sexes, I'm somehow skeptical it will have the effect the blog seems to think.
While it would be nice if this was a step in the direction of religion in general pushing for equality among the sexes, I'm somehow skeptical it will have the effect the blog seems to think.
Random question that occurred to me today - why is Christianity considered to be a monotheistic religion? Don't the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit add up to 3 Gods? I mean I'm sure there is an answer - i was just wondering if there was one beyond "Because Christians say it is & it's their religion so they get to call it monotheistic if they want."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality
Basically, the three are "of one substance." They seem to be three, but they really are all one.
Basically, the three are "of one substance." They seem to be three, but they really are all one.
If only we knew someone who could explain the Mormon position (possibly at length) 
. The whole three aspects of one being feels like a handwave to allow themselves to call Christianity monotheistic, but if that's what they want to do then that's what they'll do. Plus I'm fairly certain all the various churches aren't going to change the definition of their religion based on the opinion of one random atheist. And there's more of them than there is of me so I'm not going to argue this too hard. 
. The whole three aspects of one being feels like a handwave to allow themselves to call Christianity monotheistic, but if that's what they want to do then that's what they'll do. Plus I'm fairly certain all the various churches aren't going to change the definition of their religion based on the opinion of one random atheist. And there's more of them than there is of me so I'm not going to argue this too hard. 
No fun allowed response: I mean, if you really want to start digging, there's elements cobbled together from Judaism, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, among others to make what we know of Christianity.
But that's like when someone analyzing a movie and someone replies with "because the writers wanted to" instead of actually getting into it, so ...
Canon version: think how water is different in its solid, liquid, and gaseous states, but at all times is still the same substance.
But that's like when someone analyzing a movie and someone replies with "because the writers wanted to" instead of actually getting into it, so ...
Canon version: think how water is different in its solid, liquid, and gaseous states, but at all times is still the same substance.
I never got how the Holy Spirit got in there. If you look up the quotes pertaining to the Spirit, most of them seem like it's the same dual meaning of "spirit" modern English uses to metaphorically refer to a feeling that comes over you, not some actual being. https://www.openbible.info/topics/holy_spirit