spiritual discussionsThis is the place at AW for mamas to learn about all different religions and beliefs, to ask questions, to give answers- all done with respect! if you don't have anything nice to say here- don't say anything at all.
Okay, you have secrets in a mystery tradition. But I maintain that that is not what they are about. I'm talking about focus--the meat, as it were. The secrets are there but the secrets themeselves don't define the tradition. Like I said, having a secret doesn't make it a mystery tradition.
Club, group, sect, order, family, whatever. My use of the word club wasn't meant to be derogatory, just a figure of speech (it's something i say. "i dont take the eucharist, so im not in that club. i only like boys, so im not in the bisexual club. im not a feminist, so im not in the cool kid club, etc. it's just how i denote a group of folks, that's all.)
Look, i admit it: I think religious secrets are silly. Very, very silly. I think the "oathbound-ness" of oathbound traditions is by and large silly and I think most so-called Mystery Traditions in their current forms are a bit silly. (ie--the GD, the OTO, a lot of Greek mystery trads. In other words, primarily the hermetic and hermeticly inspired stuff, not necessarily more religiously oriented orders) That's my opinion. I have tried to see the other side of it and I can't. Maybe that's a shortcoming on my behalf. I also understand that my position on the matter could be taken as offensive, but that's my view.
anyway, my only real point is that i think it is disingenuous to stress the secret aspect of any mystery because that's not the core of the mystery. It's only the frosting. And if you write 2,000 word article on Mystery Traditions for Wikipedia and you leave that completely out, I think you suck That's a very lopsided, narrow view of the whole *purpose* of the Mystery Tradition.
I haven't checked back for awhile and this thread got long
In going back to some questions asked, here's my response below:
Quote:
Could someone please clarify this for me...
I've been told that women in the LDS church can not attain the god position unless thier dh's do and if they are divorced they can not at all. But then I've also been told that if an LDS couple divorces and the dh remarries and reaches godhood that the first wife will be by his side and the second won't (not sure what happens to the second wife)
so how do LDS women fit into the afterlife?
Heaven is a lot more than just heaven and hell. In order to become as God is, and to live with Him, a person needs to have the covenants that come with sealing (marriage). If a person doesn't get the chance or want to in this life, that can be taken care of in the next life. If you don't want to, you don't go to hell, you just don't get to become as God. You still have a nice peaceful afterlife, etc. For all I know (not mormon doctrine) you might become an angel So a woman can't do it without a man, but a man can't do it without a woman either.
If you are divorced, and a new marriage doesn't work out in this life, they'll be worked out in the next. If you are divorced and the husband remarries, his first wife wouldn't be by his side in the next life because that sealing covenant has been broken. If the church didn't approve him to be sealed to his second wife, then God would work that out in the next life. No one is going to be stuck in eternity with someone they don't want to be with. Also women are JUST AS IMPORTANT in the afterlife as men - there would be no becoming as God if women didn't make it too.
Quote:
That was a huge issue with me personally. Nobody (meaning a higher up) could show me where teachings were totally solid on what happens in these various situations.
I was given silly answers to try to make me shut up to equality questions and that did have a small part in my leaving.
Men are allowed to know their wives special names (that everyone gets in the Temple ceremony) but women are forbidden from knowing their husbands special name. Men are to call their wives into glory with that name etc....
LDS mamas, I hope I am OK with not giving away any info about Temple that I should not. I try to still honor that and not say anything specific. If I crossed the line above with that info about the names, please let me know and I'll delete it out of respect for you all.
In regards to the temple name, the only time the husband hears or knows it is one single instance when he is representing God. It's just symbolism, but he represents God and calls his wife by name. My own husband swears he can't even remember what my temple name was... we were getting married, he was nervous, and it was the last thing on his mind.
I know some women struggle with the fact that men hold the priesthood and they don't. I don't know how to respond to that, honestly, because I think men and women are supposed to do different things. I'd much rather bear a child then have the priesthood. I can see this being hard for someone to accept, if they didn't like it. I don't think it makes the man or woman any less equal - just different roles.
And finally, about the doctrine issue, I'll see what I can find out. As a missionary we were taught that even incredible books like mormon doctrine, Jesus the Christ, etc., were NOT scripture and were not to be taken as such. We were told specifically to never quote mormon doctrine as specific doctrine. Having said that, it WAS a part of our mission library and we did read from it and study it, so that's got to mean something.
I would think that anything the prophet says is doctrine. Anything the apostles say in general conference is doctrine. (Each talk is approved by the prophet before hand). The presidency messages in any church magazine is doctrine.
Anything beyond that, could be, but I wouldn't call it such unless I heard it from the prophet himself. As for Heavenly Mother, I honestly wasn't aware that was doctrine so I'll have to do some of my own personal research on that.
Humble, trusting prayer brings direction and peace. Don't worry about clumsily expressed feelings. Just talk to your compassionate, understanding Father. You are his precious child whom He loves perfectly and wants to help. -Richard G. Scott
I haven't checked back for awhile and this thread got long
In going back to some questions asked, here's my response below:
<snip>
Thank you for sharing so much first hand information. Fascinating! I've learned far more about the LDS faith in this one thread than I had done so before this point in time.
<snip>
Look, i admit it: I think religious secrets are silly. Very, very silly. I think the "oathbound-ness" of oathbound traditions is by and large silly and I think most so-called <snip>
anyway, my only real point is that i think it is disingenuous to stress the secret aspect of any mystery because that's not the core of the mystery. It's only the frosting. And if you write 2,000 word article on Mystery Traditions for Wikipedia and you leave that completely out, I think you suck That's a very lopsided, narrow view of the whole *purpose* of the Mystery Tradition.
Thanks for sharing these as opinions. I respect your opinion Anise. I simply do not agree with it, from an academic as well as spiritual/personal view. Which is my opinion, and experience.
And thank the Gods we live in America where currently we're still able to agree to disagree. Thanks for at least considering how your opinion was coming off, and how it may appear and sound to others. I appreciate that.
As for Heavenly Mother, I honestly wasn't aware that was doctrine so I'll have to do some of my own personal research on that.
I'm perplexed. You just listed LDS doctrine, you just said man and woman have to make it together... so why would you say you're not aware that "Heavenly Mother" is doctrinal? It's at the very core of the LDS religion.... families staying intact in the next life.... husbands cannot be exalted w/out their wives... so why don't you know that God has a wife?
I always think of doctrine as set in stone, this is, well, doctrine.
It makes sense to me, knowing LDS doctrine that there would need to be a Heavenly Mother, but I don't remember ever reading the prophets declare that or even talk much about it.
Doesn't mean it wasn't so, or that they haven't, it just means that *I* hadn't ever studied it before or don't remember. I've got it on my plate to study up on so that I can have a better answer next time around.
I guess I think of it in the same realms of whether or not Jesus was married... I personally think He was or will be, but can't remember finding any actual doctrine that said He was/is.
Or polygamy. Some say it's doctrine, others say we won't have to live it in the next life, etc. I don't know what the right answer is on that. I don't know what the "doctrinal" answer is.
Does that make more sense? It's not that I was trying to second guess anyone or not give someone a straight answer, it's just something I'd never thought all that much about or studied enough to know if it was "doctrine".
Now I'm confusing even myself. I guess I always had the opinion that there would have to be or was, but having never heard or read it stated as "doctrine" I didn't know if it was really true.
Heavenly Mother was doctrine back when I was a member....unless the church pulled it since then (which I'm sure they didn't), it would still be doctrine. Not one of those things you hear talked about at church in meetings (same as polygamy, for example) but they are both doctrine.
I heard the speculation that Jesus was married (when I was active), but I was never taught that this was doctrine.
It does get confusing! Especially when some leaders in the church will say that all Discourses are doctrine since the prophet was speaking to the members as the mouthpiece of Heavenly Father etc...etc...etc....but then when you read the actual discourses, you sometimes wonder. I asked my stake president about what was doctrine (years ago) and that is where I got my info. It would be neat to hear what your stake president says if you were to ask him the same question.
Hey, aren't conferences coming up soon? I thought I remembered them happening in March or April. Are the talks online anywhere in text? I was told that the Ensign that comes out after conference (the one that has the talks in it from the conference) is to be considered doctrine. I'd like to read them so I can stay up-to-date.
I found in my own studying of early church doctrine, that it is clear as mud in many instances and my local (stake level) leaders did not know much more than I did about what was or was not doctrine when I brought early teachings to their attention.....many of the teachings were totally foreign to my stake leaders which frustrated my search for answers even more!!! *lol* I was like a puppy chasing her tail much of the time.
You can find the conference talks and other articles/info atLDS Official Website I hope that helps. I just got my Ensign in yesterday and have not had a chance to read it yet. Conference Sunday's are my family go to the park days b/c it is hard to keep 4 kids still and quiet. We used to try watching conference at home but dh would go to sleep each time... Hope that helps!
The best place you can look to see what is and is not church doctrine is in the "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. It has numerous topics and explains the history and the belief with that topic.
About what is doctrine it says:
"Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found the the scriptures; it includes the principles and precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it , as is every inspired utterance of the Lord's agents."
Further on it says:
" Apostles and prophets have been set in the Church for the purpose of teaching and identifying true doctrine, lest men be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."(Eph. 4:11-14) If a church has no prophets and apostles, then it has no way of knowing whether its doctrines are true or false."
The best place you can look to see what is and is not church doctrine is in the "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. It has numerous topics and explains the history and the belief with that topic.
About what is doctrine it says:
"Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found the the scriptures; it includes the principles and precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it , as is every inspired utterance of the Lord's agents."
Further on it says:
" Apostles and prophets have been set in the Church for the purpose of teaching and identifying true doctrine, lest men be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."(Eph. 4:11-14) If a church has no prophets and apostles, then it has no way of knowing whether its doctrines are true or false."
Does that clear up the doctrine issue?
That just further confuses it for me.
Reason why is I've used and quoted Mormon Doctrine before and have been rebuked for doing so and was told that this was not considered doctrine. But I had been told that it was indeed considered to be doctrinally sound by my former stake president (when I was active)....but if women here who are members have been told it is NOT to be considered doctrine/doctrinally sound, then that is very very very inconsistent of what members are being told IS and IS NOT doctrine, KWIM?
This inconsistency that I saw/see in many areas of the church (historical issues, what is doctrine etc....) is one of the reasons why I left the church a number of years ago.
So, no.....this did not clear up the doctrine issue. Sorry.
Well, I am sorry I could not clear it up. I will say that alot of General Authorities have quoted and referred to the Mormon Doctrine in their talks. I am not gonna say it is the ONLY thing to refer to to get information. I also feel that fretting over some topics is just looking for a reason to dispute something. I had a dear friend who left the church b/c of something so minor and detailed that I cannot even remember what it was. Do I "hold that against her"? No! She has the right to her beliefs and choices just as I do, and so do you. BUT....I believe in the Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and have a strong testimony of Christ and his resurrection. Can I prove any of it? NO, but I have had my personal witness and I dont need to have it "proved" to me.
OK, I am getting off on a tangent, just excuse me and I will go back to lurking like I usually do....
I believe there is a statement from Bruce R McConkie in the foreword of Mormon Doctrine that says it is not official doctrine. I will have to look for my copy.
That's a very lopsided, narrow view of the whole *purpose* of the Mystery Tradition.
So a woman can't do it without a man, but a man can't do it without a woman either. 
Hope that helps!
Linear Mode
