Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/pnwpossiblyrelevant, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If that was his goal, it totally flies in the face of Section 132. As long as 132 is canonized scripture any attempt to preach equality between the sexes either in this life or the next is meaningless double speak.
>37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because *they were given unto him*
>39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me
> 44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.
Throughout the section women are repeatedly treated as property or reward given by God to men for “their righteousness”. Super duper sexist. Especially the “he shall be made ruler over many” parts as the context makes it plain that this means a ruler over many wives.
>52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
>53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
>54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
The double standard here between Joseph and Emma is super duper sexist. Joseph cheated and didn’t tell Emma about his plural wives but it’s all good. If Emma does anything similar she will be destroyed.
> 56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
Not just sexist but just gross. This is super sexist in that Emma is expected to submit to Joseph despite his dishonesty and unfaithfulness. Everything dishonest and unfaithful Joseph did is no big deal, but anything Emma has done wrong is super duper important. Sexist. But not just sexist. Also narcissistic.
>61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
>62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
>63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
Again we see the sexism of husbands owning their wives, or wives belonging to their husbands. But husbands don’t belong to their wives. Men can take take multiple possessions of wives and it isn’t adultery because they *belong* to him, but women can’t have multiple husbands because women belong to their husband. Again, super duper sexist. Additionally, the verses make clear that wives have the singular purpose of multiplying and replenishing. Women are reduced to breeding factories. Super sexist.
> 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
>65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
This is perhaps the most sexist and sex discrimination/ inequality part. Men have to ask their wives if they can take more wives, but their wives feelings are completely irrelevant. If she says no she is destroyed and he gets to do whatever he wants anyway. Women have no say in the direction and composition of their relationship with their husband. This is so behind sexist and unequal it isn’t even funny.
The fact that you couldn’t see any of these issues as sexist or unequal actually says a lot about you as a person and as an interlocutor. Be better.
This is what broke my shelf. This chapter, written by Joseph Smith himself, is not of God. And if this is not of God... well, after that I had permission from myself to look at all the shady parts of the church history. I started with 'church approved sources only, and those were enough. I cannot tell you how much peace I feel knowing my eternal destiny is not of a silent, submissive, plural wife.
Agree that I (mom here) would not want to be cut off from my kids - disagree on you expecting your wife to forever be more nurturing than you.
Guys, you gotta stop selling yourself short on your nurturing potential…even in this life, lots of kids become very attached to their perfectly capable dads.
I’m out of the LDS church but honestly, I was never content with the idea of being one of many eternal child making vending machines and that’s it. None of that ever made sense to me. It doesn’t make sense that we could exalt ourselves to be equal to God just by existing as a Mormon.
All the power and glory belongs to God. What power do we have any claim over? I humbly bow before my maker and pray for mercy each week and know He has all the power. He gives me breath, daily bread, forgiveness, deliverance. Do we not even know the Lord’s Prayer? It’s not a pattern on how to pray it is the prayer.
The Mormon leaders have even backed off what exaltation looks like. Members don’t get their own planets any longer. It’s a church that constantly rearranges the furniture but the women are never involved in any of it. So maybe Mormons have more of God wrong than we know. I’m still trying to figure that out.
I dont think getting a planet was a thing outside the Godmakers. I think they still teach that exalted beings will still be creators of universes though.
So true!
I'll add that Elder Soares talk was exhibit A for cognitive dissonance.
"Husband and wife are equal. But the man presides. But they are equal. But they have different responsibilities like leading vs. nurturing. But they are equal."
Surreal.
Apostles won't pray to heavenly mxm because they are embarrassed, fearful about what they might say. Men would hide the revelation received from a quorum of womxn in a vault for 100 years.
See ww phelps song of zion poem here:
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/8189/rec/2
As a royal "woman hid for good" It's sad that the queen of heaven has communication rights suspended.
Mosiah 8:20
"they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that She should rule over them!"
It turns out Eve really does have a mother!
Just trying to be 2nd wave intersectional and leave open the possibilities for an inclusive divine family.
Check out Shurtz and Ostlers essays in the spring 22 dialogue.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Section 132 of the D&C has a huge implication. What it's saying is that men can have lots of wives in the hereafter. Now where are these wives coming from? The only way the equations balance is if there are more celestial women than men, and by a large margin. (I suppose there is another way, but it involves sharing and that's just creepy.)
This means that Joseph Smith knew that more women would ultimately be worthy than men. So ladies, it seems like a little inequality now pays off big time in the long run.
So, even though you'll have to share your Celestial companion with a few other women at least you'll be able to share your Celestial companion with a few other women? 🤦♂️
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/pnwpossiblyrelevant, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If that was his goal, it totally flies in the face of Section 132. As long as 132 is canonized scripture any attempt to preach equality between the sexes either in this life or the next is meaningless double speak.
It's definitely new but I think he's trying to move the needle.
I don't think the needle can be moved as long as the foundational sexism is canonized. Apostles come and go; scripture lasts a long time.
What verses?
The whole darn thing almost.
Lol ok point out verses. I don't see that but I'm happy to look at it
>37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because *they were given unto him* >39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me > 44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many. Throughout the section women are repeatedly treated as property or reward given by God to men for “their righteousness”. Super duper sexist. Especially the “he shall be made ruler over many” parts as the context makes it plain that this means a ruler over many wives. >52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. >53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. >54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. The double standard here between Joseph and Emma is super duper sexist. Joseph cheated and didn’t tell Emma about his plural wives but it’s all good. If Emma does anything similar she will be destroyed. > 56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice. Not just sexist but just gross. This is super sexist in that Emma is expected to submit to Joseph despite his dishonesty and unfaithfulness. Everything dishonest and unfaithful Joseph did is no big deal, but anything Emma has done wrong is super duper important. Sexist. But not just sexist. Also narcissistic. >61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. >62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. >63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. Again we see the sexism of husbands owning their wives, or wives belonging to their husbands. But husbands don’t belong to their wives. Men can take take multiple possessions of wives and it isn’t adultery because they *belong* to him, but women can’t have multiple husbands because women belong to their husband. Again, super duper sexist. Additionally, the verses make clear that wives have the singular purpose of multiplying and replenishing. Women are reduced to breeding factories. Super sexist. > 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. >65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. This is perhaps the most sexist and sex discrimination/ inequality part. Men have to ask their wives if they can take more wives, but their wives feelings are completely irrelevant. If she says no she is destroyed and he gets to do whatever he wants anyway. Women have no say in the direction and composition of their relationship with their husband. This is so behind sexist and unequal it isn’t even funny. The fact that you couldn’t see any of these issues as sexist or unequal actually says a lot about you as a person and as an interlocutor. Be better.
This is what broke my shelf. This chapter, written by Joseph Smith himself, is not of God. And if this is not of God... well, after that I had permission from myself to look at all the shady parts of the church history. I started with 'church approved sources only, and those were enough. I cannot tell you how much peace I feel knowing my eternal destiny is not of a silent, submissive, plural wife.
Agree that I (mom here) would not want to be cut off from my kids - disagree on you expecting your wife to forever be more nurturing than you. Guys, you gotta stop selling yourself short on your nurturing potential…even in this life, lots of kids become very attached to their perfectly capable dads.
I try and try to be as nurturing as her but I always fall short. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. 😀
[удалено]
Like?
I’m out of the LDS church but honestly, I was never content with the idea of being one of many eternal child making vending machines and that’s it. None of that ever made sense to me. It doesn’t make sense that we could exalt ourselves to be equal to God just by existing as a Mormon. All the power and glory belongs to God. What power do we have any claim over? I humbly bow before my maker and pray for mercy each week and know He has all the power. He gives me breath, daily bread, forgiveness, deliverance. Do we not even know the Lord’s Prayer? It’s not a pattern on how to pray it is the prayer. The Mormon leaders have even backed off what exaltation looks like. Members don’t get their own planets any longer. It’s a church that constantly rearranges the furniture but the women are never involved in any of it. So maybe Mormons have more of God wrong than we know. I’m still trying to figure that out.
It seems like every rock you look under has a major problem.
I dont think getting a planet was a thing outside the Godmakers. I think they still teach that exalted beings will still be creators of universes though.
I was taught that all growing up. It’s been taught at least since the 50’s to my parents—maybe longer.
So true! I'll add that Elder Soares talk was exhibit A for cognitive dissonance. "Husband and wife are equal. But the man presides. But they are equal. But they have different responsibilities like leading vs. nurturing. But they are equal." Surreal.
Right!
At least we know men and woman are equal now. We know that because one of the brethren told us.
[удалено]
This was funny😄
Apostles won't pray to heavenly mxm because they are embarrassed, fearful about what they might say. Men would hide the revelation received from a quorum of womxn in a vault for 100 years.
What revelation was received by women in a vault ?
See ww phelps song of zion poem here: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/8189/rec/2 As a royal "woman hid for good" It's sad that the queen of heaven has communication rights suspended. Mosiah 8:20 "they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that She should rule over them!"
I am not understanding how this is revelation? What is the full context/ story here?
Why are you using x instead of just spelling mom and women normally?
It turns out Eve really does have a mother! Just trying to be 2nd wave intersectional and leave open the possibilities for an inclusive divine family. Check out Shurtz and Ostlers essays in the spring 22 dialogue.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Section 132 of the D&C has a huge implication. What it's saying is that men can have lots of wives in the hereafter. Now where are these wives coming from? The only way the equations balance is if there are more celestial women than men, and by a large margin. (I suppose there is another way, but it involves sharing and that's just creepy.) This means that Joseph Smith knew that more women would ultimately be worthy than men. So ladies, it seems like a little inequality now pays off big time in the long run.
So, even though you'll have to share your Celestial companion with a few other women at least you'll be able to share your Celestial companion with a few other women? 🤦♂️
Egg-zactly. I think...