Mormon prophecy of Constituionalist leader?!?

[ParkerD]

Not true. In the temple, at least when I attended, Women had to swear to OBEY husbands. That does not sound very equal

To leave out the context is to leave out the meaning. A person can take a verse from the epistles of Paul and draw the same conclusion, but that means the context has been left out and an incorrect impression has been drawn as to what the apostle Paul was teaching.

However, people use that incorrect basis all the time, so it’s not new, and no doubt it will continue to be used, both for self-justification and for being a filter which is fine with me if that’s what a person wants to do and be.

 

[TexanKnight]

To leave out the context is to leave out the meaning. A person can take a verse from the epistles of Paul and draw the same conclusion, but that means the context has been left out and an incorrect impression has been drawn as to what the apostle Paul was teaching.

However, people use that incorrect basis all the time, so it’s not new, and no doubt it will continue to be used, both for self-justification and for being a filter which is fine with me if that’s what a person wants to do and be.

It was not out of context and, if you attended the temple pre 1990 (when I stopped), you would know that. There is NO need to be misleading. Men vowed to obey God, women vowed to Obey their husbands. Further, the men and women were kept separate and the husband got to know the wife’s secret name but the wife NEVER knew the husband’s secret name. The wife ONLY got to go thru the veil when the husband pulled her thru.

Do NOT mislead the people here. I will be here to correct that…always

 

[ParkerD]

It was not out of context and, if you attended the temple pre 1990 (when I stopped), you would know that. There is NO need to be misleading. Men vowed to obey God, women vowed to Obey their husbands. …

Do NOT mislead the people here. I will be here to correct that…always

TexanKnight,

I don’t worry in the least about whether “you are here”. I am not “here.”

I was born in 1954. You can do the math.

You added more context above, which was vitally important if you were attempting to give accurate insights.

When a husband obeys God, then guess what? He treats his wife as a total equal in every respect, he takes counsel from her, he considers her his helpmeet and that she was given to him by God and that they should spiritually be “one”. That means equal sharing, equal unselfishness, equally shoring up the other person if they are having a hard day. It means being “one” with each other and then adding in the vitally important understanding from the Savior’s intercessory prayer and therefore seeking to be “one” with God, so God is always within the relationship, which is what Paul also taught and what the Savior taught.

It means no divorce, period. It means the man is filled with love for his wife and their children all his days, and his wife feels that love as an active part of her life all her days. It means her joy is increased because she has such a loving, supportive husband who is obeying God in his every word and deed within the home or outside of the home when either of them has social or working relationships–about which neither need worry because they have complete devotion to each other, and are keeping the commandments out of love for God and each other. (As in, love thy neighbor as thyself.)

 

[ParkerD]

TexanKnight,

As the husband obeys God, the leading that he does in the home becomes a vital part of the “training” of his children, including boys and young men, but also girls and young women.

For the boys, here is a greatly insightful excerpt from an editorial in our local newspaper of today:

Growing up has never been easy, but the challenges facing today’s young males seem particularly treacherous. Naturally fitted to seek adventure, friendship and accomplishment, teenage young men are easily lured into manipulative media that provides compelling but dangerous counterfeits for each.

For example, rather than engaging a real world of adventure with actual flesh-and-blood friends, too many young men are wasting millions of precious developmental hours seeking to move up to new levels of challenge in violent multi-player video games. Giving into an addictive false sense of adventure and achievement, they are, in the end, left bereft of genuine friends and solid accomplishment.

According to respected psychologist Michael Gurian, young men yearn to develop character. They may not fully recognize those yearnings (and they will almost never articulate them), but according to Gurian, the rapidly growing psyches of young men want to develop identity, autonomy, morality and friendship through skillful guidance from family and community. Teenage boys know intuitively that in order for them to be valued over their lifetime, the challenging world they are entering into will have to depend on them. That can be a frightening intuition. Consequently, boys require painstaking life-lessons in how to serve, how to lead and how to succeed.

Girls observing how their dad treats their mom, in his role of obeying God at all times, see him treating her with dignity, respect consideration, affection, tenderness, forgiveness and asking forgiveness, high levels of positive communication (which for the girls is an immeasurable gift and for the boys also–how to talk to each other in supportive ways, and stay off of video games or cell phones or text messaging or watching television as primary activities in the home. Hooray for the men who do this, whatever religion they have chosen for themselves.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

I don’t worry in the least about whether “you are here”. I am not “here.”

I was born in 1954. You can do the math.

I never asked you to worry. I did not know if you were around the temple before 1990. That has nothing to do with age. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply did not know, therefore, you were not intentionally being misleading. Thank you for correcting me

You added more context above, which was vitally important if you were attempting to give accurate insights.

I gave accurate insights

When a husband obeys God, then guess what? He treats his wife as a total equal in every respect, he takes counsel from her, he considers her his helpmeet and that she was given to him by God and that they should spiritually be “one”. That means equal sharing, equal unselfishness, equally shoring up the other person if they are having a hard day. It means being “one” with each other and then adding in the vitally important understanding from the Savior’s intercessory prayer and therefore seeking to be “one” with God, so God is always within the relationship, which is what Paul also taught and what the Savior taught.

Nice try. But I find it odd, then, given what you are trying to convince people, that the Husbands do not need to swear and vow to obey the wives. Guess the equality is a bit one sided, huh? And why do the wives not learn the name of the Husband? Why do the wives not pull the husbands thru the veil? Again, nothing like one-sided LDS equality…

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

As the husband obeys God, the leading that he does in the home becomes a vital part of the “training” of his children, including boys and young men, but also girls and young women.

For the boys, here is a greatly insightful excerpt from an editorial in our local newspaper of today:

Girls observing how their dad treats their mom, in his role of obeying God at all times, see him treating her with dignity, respect consideration, affection, tenderness, forgiveness and asking forgiveness, high levels of positive communication (which for the girls is an immeasurable gift and for the boys also–how to talk to each other in supportive ways, and stay off of video games or cell phones or text messaging or watching television as primary activities in the home. Hooray for the men who do this, whatever religion they have chosen for themselves.

Again, that does not explain the one-sided equality I have already discussed

 

[ParkerD]

Again, that does not explain the one-sided equality I have already discussed

I am supposing that you may perhaps be able to ask the apostle Paul about it someday, since his epistles carry the same kind of message to men about how to treat their wife and be a leader for her (and yet they really lead together).

Until then, peace be unto you, and 'bye.

 

[TexanKnight]

I am supposing that you may perhaps be able to ask the apostle Paul about it someday, since his epistles carry the same kind of message to men about how to treat their wife and be a leader for her (and yet they really lead together).

Until then, peace be unto you, and 'bye.

No need to talk to Paul…he lived almost 2000 years ago. Your “apostles” were approving this unequality as recently as 22 years ago…and maybe even more recently.

In the meantime, I will note your typical red-herring answer, your typical dodge, and your typical refusal to respond to the points presented. Again, Brother Parker, I understand your need to do those things. I really do.

And though LDS marriages do not truly lead together (only one priestholder), in the Catholic Church, we really do

As a Catholic, I am glad my wife never had to vow to obey me. I am glad I do not have to keep a secret name from her, and I am glad we did not have to vow to kill ourselves in our marriage ceremonies.

Be well, Dear Brother. Still praying for you to come to the truth