glass shelf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:36 am
Devout women who are deep in probably won't be too interested in doing it.
On the other hand, it's all made up garbage, so if it makes them feel better, whatever.
This was also discussed on Exponent, one of the feminist blogs. Some of them are saying they are doing it. After all, Oaks said they get the priesthood when they go to the temple, and he says that a mother’s prayer is just as honored as a priesthood blessing, and that women use priesthood in their callings.....so, either women are really second class and are less in the Mormon church than their 12 year old ordained son, or they have a form of priesthood given to them in the temple and they use it as delegated to them in callings and motherhood and head of the home IS a calling. If the father can do it in his calling, why not the mother in her calling. Oaks said women use priesthood in their callings and what greater calling than mother, right?
You know, the church wants it both ways. Women are equal and use priesthood in their callings AND women don’t have priesthood because they are not ordained to it, so they can’t use it to bless the sacrament and bless babies. They want it both ways that menand women are equal partners in marriage, BUT men preside because they have priesthood. But it makes absolutely no sense to say equal, but preside. It makes no sense to say women exercise priesthood in their callings because they are set apart but men have to be ordained to exercise priesthood in their callings.
Oaks talk where he said women exercise priesthood in their calling when they are set apart to do so by priesthood, bla bla bla was a bunch of nonsense. It totally did not make sense. Either women DO, or they DON’T. They cannot have it both ways, and yet his talk trying to placate women that they really are not second class was just that. A talk trying to placate the second class that they really are not second class, but that they are second class. Now, do you understand, that I have made this clear as mud?
But Oaks didn’t face the contradictions in his ow talk. If a “Mother’s prayer” is just as honored as “priesthood” then what good is priesthood? If women who are set apart in callings by some priesthood guy use his priesthood, they why really is it different for men when they are set apart in a calling? If Jane Sunday school teacher uses the priesthood of Joe bishopric who set her apart, then why does John Sunday school teacher use his own priesthood when Joe bishopric set him apart too? What is this magical difference and why does more than one person need priesthood, when everyone is set apart in their calling by somebody above them? Maybe there is no difference and it is all made up crap.
Oaks’ confusing talk really exposed the fact that it is all made up crap and they have no idea why men have priesthood, but since it makes men superior....oops, since Christ ordained apostles....no, Christ called apostles, no evidence he ordained them, since they want men to have some glorious “thing” that makes them above...equal to but preside over...no, preside next to over their equally presiding under wife.
In the early days of the church women used priesthood to lay on hands and bless the sick and to bless women before childbirth. So, obviously we are missing something.
Perhaps it is because some women were given the second anointing and actually ordained to the priesthood of their husband, which is what the early church women believed, and maybe that is why women use priesthood in the temple today and the leaders just don’t want to explain about second anointing and priesthood of her husband, because they don’t want us second class not second anointed smucks to know there is something they are keeping secret.
They want their hierarchy with them on top, but they don’t want the second class to feel second class, so they twist words, leave out information, don’t explain what the endowment really means, and give very confusing talks about how women have priesthood given to them in the temple but really don’t have priesthood and how women use priesthood in their callings but are really using the borrowed priesthood of the guy who set them apart but men don’t use the priesthood of the guy who set them apart, but women are really not second class, we just treat them as second class, and we have this special ceremony for the very righteous that we won’t tell you about cause you are not righteous enough where we actually do ordain women, but they really are not ordained because we can’t tell you about it because it is supper special and you aren’t, but God loves you just not as much as he loves us.
And if my last sentence/paragraph was confusing, well so is their explanation of priesthood and how it makes those who have it special without making those who don’t have it less special.
Joseph Smith was like Buddy in the Incredibles movie who wanted to be special but because he wasn’t he wanted to prove just how special he really was and then make everybody special, so nobody would be special, but still be more special himself. And the church is still suffering from the Buddy complex. Everybody is special, but some are more special than others.
OMGs this is EXACTLY how they sound. And TBM women eat it up! It's so annoying.