Sunday, April 09, 2006

feminist critique of mormon theology

here is a slighly expanded version of my paper on the feminist theolgian mary daly and mormon theology that i presented at the undergrad philsophy conference on friday. it's a bit long, but i'd love any thoughts you may have on it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Mormon Application of Mary Daly’s Feminist Theology

by Loyd Ericson


In the opening chapter of her book, Beyond God the Father, Mary Daly a feminist theologian provides several criticisms of the notion of God as God the Father. Daly critiques the practice of describing God using masculine (or even feminine) terms and argues that God should be understood and referenced as an active force instead of a passive thing. While these criticisms are largely applicable to the traditional western concept of God, Mormon beliefs about God diverge from this concept in several key respects. In this paper I will review Daly’s key criticisms of the notion of God as Father, briefly discuss fundamental differences between the traditional Christian and Mormon concepts of God, show how these differences manage to avoid criticisms given by Daly, and finally point out where her criticisms apply even more to the Mormon concepts of God as they are practiced today.

Mary Daly’s critique of the notion of God as the divine Father can largely be summed up with her claim that “if God is a male, then the male is God.”1 Traditionally, the Christian concept of God is that of an immaterial (or non-physical) being without body, parts, or passions. Without bodily parts, God cannot be male, nor can God be female. Thus, any description of God as being a particular sex is contradicts and betrays the very nature of God’s attributes (or lack thereof).

The use of language which supposes physicality for a God that is not physical is hardly Daly’s primary criticism though. Rather, her primary criticism is that using masculine terms to describe God legitimizes the patriarchal society currently in place today.2 This happens in many ways. First, the notion of God as masculine supports the patriarchal structure when it is used in to justify the institutional subordination of women to men. An example of this would be an appeal to God’s supposed masculinity to justify the lack of female ecclesiastical offices or give validity to a submissive role for wives, sisters, and other women to their male counterparts. Second, by claiming that God is a male, a relationship between God the Father and men is created that cannot be duplicated between God and women. Men are able to have a special relationship with God because they are also male, while women are completely placed on the outside of this relationship. Third, by using masculine symbols to reference God (i.e. calling God, ‘Father’), one associates a level of power with being male that cannot be similarly associated with being female. Being God and being a man have a level of equivocation which is absent in the comparison between being God and being a woman. Even if these terms were used as arbitrary references for God, and not describing any necessary aspect of God, the use of the masculine language to reference God assumes that masculine references are more applicable than feminine alternatives to describe God. To say that God is more appropriately described or referenced using masculine language implies that there is something about being male that is more divine that being female. This assumption implies that men have more authority or power than women which undermines and ignores the theological oppression of women.3

Another triad of criticisms which Daly offers critique what she feels are forms of idolatry. This idolatry is the holding up of a false concept of God as an object of worship. The first of these idols is what Daly calls the “God of explanation.”4 This is the notion that God is by definition a theodicy, or an answer to the problem of evil. (The most prevalent form of the problem of evil is the logical problem of evil. This states that the claims that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent are together incompatible with the existence of evil in the world.) Different theodicies, such as Alvin Plantiga’s free will defense or John Sanders’ open theism, claim that God allows (or at least refrains from eliminating) apparent evils in the world, because they are a part of God’s plan. They are allowed because God sees the larger picture and utilizes them for a greater good. Thus the evils we experience today in the world are necessary, and the oppression of women today is one of those necessary evils that are all a part of God’s greater plan.

The second idol is the “God of otherworldliness.”5 This is the common idea of a God who makes sure that all of the problems of the world today are countered by rewards and punishments in the next life. This eschatological Mr. Fix-It idea of God is largely what Karl Marx had in mind when he called religion an opiate of the masses. Like an opiate, this notion of God, as the one who makes everything right in the end, creates apathy among Christians in the world today. God will make everything right in the end, so why deal with it now? If women are oppressed today, there is no need to worry because God will make it up to them in heaven and be sure that they are amply compensated for their mortal suffering.

Finally, the third idol is the “God who is the Judge of ‘sin’.”6 This is the divine command theory that all commandments are morally good and just because God commanded them. Rather than commandments having an underlying essential morality as a basis, the morality of a commandment is solely based on the dictation of God. Something is immoral, not because it is immoral in itself, but because God said it was immoral. This last idol creates a false sense of guilt for women who are unwilling to conform to supposed divine ‘commandments’ that ultimately oppress or marginalize women, such as the unequivocal immorality of contraceptives and abortion, or the God-commanded necessity of subordination to husbands and male leadership.

Finally, Daly proposes a resolution to the problem of God as Father. She rejects the common feminist resolution of merely turning things around and referencing God using feminine terms or emphasizing God’s ‘maternal’ characteristics. There are two main reasons for abstaining from these methods. First, doing so still leaves the initial contradictory problem of referencing a sexless God with sex-specific language. If it is a contradiction to reference a material-less (and thus sex-less) God with masculine language, then it is equally contradictory to reference this same God with feminine language. Second, and most importantly, pointing out maternal or feminine characteristics of God assumes the existence of the ‘eternal feminine.’ This is the notion that there are necessary gender roles and characteristics defining a universal femininity that transcends time and location. Or in other words, the eternal feminine implies that there are specific attributes that define what it is to be feminine or a woman. Such assumptions limit women and can almost be guaranteed to be used to oppress and marginalize the female sex.7

Daly also rejects the idea that feminists should embrace atheism and completely do away with the belief in God. Doing so, according to her, goes against a predominant aspect of human existence and experience. Also, rejecting the notion of God altogether takes feminism from this major aspect of human life and makes it nearly powerless to affect those participating in religious life. Pulling feminism away from religion leaves oppressive patriarchal religious practices and beliefs in place, and abandons a vast majority of woman who will continue to be subjugated by them. Rather, Daly believes that feminism must keep itself within the theist worldview in order to have a greater bearing in the world.8

With this in mind, Daly proposes that God be understood, not as a noun, but as a verb. God should not be understood and referenced as ‘a being’, but as ‘Be-ing’.9 This serves a purpose by making it possible for God to be referenced without any lingering symbols of maleness. Instead of being understood as a passive Other that imposes ideals and judgments by mere existence, God as Be-ing can be understood only as an active force that is constantly participating with the human experience. In a recent interview, Daly expounded on this distinction.

When I was studying standard scholastic philosophy, God was called the "supreme being." And that made him a noun and something on high. Hierarchical. Yahweh. The hairy claw coming down. And that obviously is unsatisfactory. It always has images hanging around that are undesirable. Then I realized, with the help of a friend of mine. . . that "being" is a verb, and it should be hyphenated [be-ing].10

In the context of feminist theology, there are at least two major ways in which the Mormon concept of God differs from the traditional Christian concept of God. First, unlike the traditional concept of God as an immaterial being without body or parts, the Mormon concept of God is one that “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”11 Joseph Smith, the founding leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught, If the veil were rent today, and the great God… was to make himself visible…you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man.”12 Not only is God a physical being, but God is ontologically the same type of being that humans are.

The second major difference between the traditional concept of God and the Mormon concept of God as it applies to feminist theology can be found in the Mormon hymn, Oh My Father. This hymn reads, “In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason, truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there.”13 Originally penned by Eliza R. Snow, the Mormon belief in a Mother in Heaven was once claimed by later Church president, Wilford Woodruff, to be a revelation received by Snow herself, though most evidence points to it being taught privately to her by Joseph Smith.14 This hymn which is a favorite among Mormons even includes at its end a prayer to this female deity.

When I leave this frail existence, when I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you in your royal courts on high? Then, at length, when I've completed all you sent me forth to do, with your mutual approbation let me come and dwell with you.15

The doctrine of a God the Mother was again officially confirmed in 1995 when President Gordon B. Hinckley announced in the Church’s annual General Relief Society meeting that every person was a “spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.”16 In Mormon theology, humanity’s relationship with the divine, does not only consist of a male God the Father, but also includes a female God the Mother.

These two fundamental Mormon beliefs have some major implications in the context of Daly’s feminist theology. First of all, Daly’s critique of the contradiction of using gender-specific language to reference God is not valid with Mormon theology. Unlike the traditional concept of God where sexual references to God contradict God’s immateriality, there is no contradiction in Mormonism in using male (and/or female) specific language in reference to God. God can be described and referenced as a male or female without any necessarily contradicting God’s ontological nature.

In Mormon theology gender specific references of God also do not necessarily place anyone on the outside. The existence of the divine male and female eliminate the necessary ‘other-ness’ or ‘outside-ness’ that exists when God is only participating as one of the sexes. There is no necessary relationship that a man could have with God that a female cannot.

Also, with the Mormon belief in both God the Father and God the Mother, there is no necessary connection between the masculine terms for God and the assumptions of power. Using male symbols to reference God does not imply any special authority for men either. Any male reference to God the Father can be equally countered or matched with a female reference to God the Mother. Furthermore, if male language for God the Father grants any power or divinity to men, then in the same manner, female language for God the Mother grants equal power and divinity to women. To reword Daly’s earlier claim, “if God is a male and God is a female, then male and female are Gods.”

Furthermore, because God in Mormonism is embodied, God is in at least some ways finite – meaning that God, as embodied, is limited in certain respects;17 though to what extent God is finite differs among Mormon leaders and theologians. This finitude exempts the Mormon concept of God from the idols that Daly condemns. God is not guilty of being the “God of Explanation.” Because God is finite, there is no necessity to have God as a theodicy, because the very propositions of the problem of evil are no longer valid. The logical problem of evil demands an infinite being, but if God is not infinite, then there is no necessary problem.18

Though it has never been made official, implicit in the Mormon concept of God is idea that God once participated in mortality as we are participating today. Just before his death, Joseph Smith proclaimed, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” Implicit in this is notion that morality in some way exists outside of God. Whether or not something is moral is not dependant on God, but instead, is dependent on the moral choice itself. Because of this the Mormon concept of God is also not necessarily guilty of being the idol “God who is the Judge of ‘sin’.”

While the Mormon concept of God is able to avoid certain necessary criticisms of Daly, there still remain other criticisms which Mormonism is just as or even more susceptible to than the rest of Christianity. Just as masculine references for the traditional concept of God can be used to support the subordination of women, this problem is just as likely to occur in Mormonism. While both the male and female deities are affirmed in Mormon doctrine, like most of the Christian world, Mormon practice almost exclusively uses masculine terms for the reference of God. God the Mother is seldom if ever discussed in public religious discourse. In 1991, during the fall semi-annual general Mormon conference, Gordon B. Hinckley (at that time, a counselor to the then LDS Church President, Ezra T. Benson) told area leaders, and then later told the general membership, that public discussion of the Divine Feminine was not to be had, and that prayers to Her should not be performed in public or in private.19

Just like in traditional Christianity, Mormon scriptures, ritual, and practice also support a patriarchal family where the wife is to submit to the husband. However, in Mormon theology, the silencing of Mother in Heaven makes this criticism even more applicable. By keeping Her identity hidden, Mormons have a seemingly divine exemplar of feminine subordination to the masculine. In Joseph Smith’s final discourse he says, “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” If understanding the attributes of God helps a person understand himself, how do the silent, subordinate, submissive, suppressed, and shut-away attributes of the Divine Female in Mormonism help a daughter of God understand herself?

While the fundamental doctrine of a Mother in Heaven eliminates a necessary difference in relationship between the gendered person and the gendered Divine in Mormon theology, once again the silencing of discussion of the Divine Mother eliminates or at least minimizes the possibility of a woman to have the same relationship with deity that a man is able to have. While a man can have a shared relationship of gender with God, a woman’s ability to do the same is nearly impossible except in the abstract. She can try to relate to the Divine Mother, but because any discussion of Her is quenched, there is very little for a daughter of the Divine Mother to work with. Once again, the silencing of God the Mother negates Her positive possibilities.

Concerning Daly’s third criticism of the notion of God as Father, the current Mormon practice of silencing discussion of God as Mother once again, not only negates the positive effects of a divine feminine, but further enforces the theological power structure that feminist theology is attempting to do away with. By closing off discussion and prayer to a Mother in Heaven, current Mormon practice is affirming the notion that God the Father, as a male, has more power than His partner who is female. It is He who interacts with humanity. It is He who is really God. Mother in Heaven, like the Commander’s wife in The Handmaids Tale, is merely for show20. She performs no real function, but exists only as a false symbol of equality.

Finally, because the divine is embodied and exists both as God the Father and God the Mother, God cannot be referenced as just a verb. God is both a duplicity of beings and a duplicity of Be-ings. Furthermore, unlike the traditional concept of God that has no actual gender, the Mormon concept of God must be conceived of as gendered. Though discussion of Her has been largely silenced, it is not possible for Her to be referenced without gender. The subconscious reminder of Her gender will always be present in a Mormon context. Where Daly rejects the idea of referencing God using feminine terms because of its affirmation of the eternal feminine, this is not possible with the Mormon concept of God. Reference to God in Mormonism affirms the existence of God the Mother, which then necessarily affirms the eternal feminine. While this in no way demands any necessary characteristics of the eternal feminine, the current silencing of God the Mother implies some problematic characteristics of what the eternal feminine consists of.

In conclusion, the Mormon concept of the divine as being embodied and consisting of both male and female deities is able to simultaneously maintain concepts of gender for God and avoid any necessary criticisms of Daly. The existence of both God the Mother and God the Father can eliminate criticisms sexual bias and power that accompanies gender-specific references to the traditional concept of God. While the existence of God the Mother implies an eternal feminine, it says nothing of any necessary characteristics of that eternal feminine. Thus this concept is still void of criticisms of gender bias.

However, the current practice of silencing discussions of and prayers to God the Mother overturn much of the positive effects of Her existence. Instead, the combination of Her existence and Her silence imply an even stronger gender-bias and support of a theological patriarchal power structure than the use of gender reference with the traditional concept of God. In order for Mormonism to avoid these implications, the current practice of silencing God the Mother needs to be corrected.

1 Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993) p. 19

2 Ibid. p. 13

3 Ibid. pp. 19-20

4 Ibid. p 30

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid. p. 31

7 Ibid. p. 19

8 Ibid. p. 28-9

9 Ibid. p. 33-4

10 Susan Bridle, “No Man’s Land: an interview with Mary Daly,” What is Enlightenment? (Fall, 1999).

11 The Doctrines and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sec 130 vs.20

12 Times and Seasons (Aug. 15, 1844)

13 Eliza Snow, “O My Father,” Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985), 292. This hymn was originally titled, “Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother.”

14 Linda Wilcox, “The Mormon Concept of Mother in Heaven,” in Maxine Hanks ed., Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992) p 5

15 Snow, “O My Father”.

16 The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Full text at http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html

17 Sterling McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2000) pp 29-35. See also, R. Dennis Potter, "Finitism and the Problem of Evil" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 33 No. 4 (Winter 2000) pp.83-96.

18 McMurrin, The Theological Foundations. pp. 96-109. See also Potter, “Finitism and the Problem of Evil”

19 See Wilcox, “The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven” p. 16

20 Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale (New York: Anchor Books, 1998)

17 comments:

  1. Overall, I think the paper is very well organized. My only critique is that you more clearly demonstrate the "current practice of silencing" Mother in Heaven. I understand what you mean, and think the point is valid, but an oblique reference to President Hinckley's 1991 general conference talk is probably not enough to hang accusations of active suppression of doctrine or discussion relating to this topic. The statement preceding the Hinckley reference ("God the Mother is seldom if ever discussed in public religious discourse") reads more like an apology for not being able to provide more convincing evidence. Again, I think you have a good point here, but it seems inadequately supported, especially to a group unfamiliar with LDS culture.

    That being said, I think this was a good paper on an interesting topic. You ahould look into the femininization of Jesus in Trinitarian religions. Or into the theology of the Shakers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. russ, i should have included more about the church's active role in suppressing discussion of god the mother and disciplining those that do. i was talking with janice allred a couple weeks ago about her experience. if there were ever a nicer person, i haven't met them. janice was excommunicated for her writings about god the mother. google her name, and i'm sure you can read all about it.

    while i don't think that mormonism can take the route of the shakers or some radical revisions of jesus as a woman, i think there are other options that could do much good. such as opening discussion and prayer to both divine parents, giving women the priesthood, placing more emphasis on jesus's anti-sexist approach to women, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. a thought:

    If I were walking down the street, hand in hand with my wife, and anyone came up to me, spit on me, slapped me, called me every vile and profane thing you could think of, I would like to think that I have the dignity to smile and keep on walking. Now, if someone were to come up and do any of those things to my wife ... I would like to think that I would honor her enough to defend her.

    When you take a step back, look at society and how casual and dis-respectfully we use the name of God. And how irreverantly we treat him, etc. Is it really any wonder that he protects his wife from the same mis-use? That he would keep her sacred and holy and not allow her to be treated as he has? In all honesty, I've never questioned why we don't talk about our Heavenly Mother more. I've always taken it as a sign that God must really love her, to protect her the way he has. To uphold her name and dignity to the level that he has ... I can only hope that I have the same level of compassion and respect for my wife.

    If you want to attack me, okay. Say what you want, do whatever ... but don't you dare attack my wife, don't you dare defame her in any way.

    ryan o.

    ReplyDelete
  4. are you planning to have children ryan? i'm sure you don't want your kids demeaning their mother. understandable. are you then willing to complete cut her off from their lives, prevent them from speaking to her, expressing their love for her, or knowing anything about her? what example does it set if god the father keeps his wife muffled behind a curtain?

    last year, jill derr (then director of the joseph fielding smith institute, and now in salt lake in the lds church history) gave a wonderful talk on eliza r. snow, and how she found joy and more purpose in life through the relationship she was able to have with god the mother... a relationship that is actively supressed by the church today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, if you really wanted to get down to the point. And be completely direct about it all. Why don't we pray to our Heavenly Father??? Why don't any of our sacraments/convenants/anything go directly to him ... ??? It's all done in the name of Jesus Christ. Everything goes through Christ. He is our mediator. We aren't allowed direct communication with God. Write a paper about that, I'd be interested in hearing your view point on that subject.

    ryan o

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Silent Observer4/11/2006 3:26 PM

    Good paper. You write well.

    I can understand both sides of the situation. On the one hand, you cannot blaspheme what you don't know. And perhaps it is by divine design that the Father interacts exclusively with mortal children.

    But I could understand the benefits of mortal daughters of God patterning their lives after a Heavenly Mother. I'd never thought of that verse in "O My Father" as a prayer to Her, but it certainly is.

    In fact, our prayers that are addressed to Heavenly Father may implicitly include Heavenly Mother based upon scriptures about Adam and Eve together that say "God called their name Adam" (Gen. 5:2, Moses 6:9).

    I would be interested in reading more about Eliza R. Snow's feelings on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ryan. we pray to god the father all the time. the idea that our prayers are somehow all mediated by jesus and are never directly taken to god is rather unscriptural, most likely beyong your own experience, and largely just the opinions of some church leaders.

    last time i prayed, i prayed to god the father. last time i heard the sacrament, it began with 'oh god the eternal father'. when jesus taught us how to pray in the bible and book of mormon, he taught us to pray to our father in heaven. even bruce mckonkie (who i rarely agree with) said that we need to pray to god the father and it is our father that we need a relationship with.

    ReplyDelete
  8. s.o.,

    thanks. i think a good argument could be made that the god we pray to is the united divine parents. i know janice allred an other mormon feminists have advocated that. if such is the case, i do think that "the father" should somehow be changed as it may just remnant of an over-patriarchal society. daly's criticisms would argue that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. s.o.,

    another thing. there are some pretty cool rabbinical traditions about adam and eve being created as a single person and later divided in half. from what i recall, the hebrew translated 'man/adam' is different before and after the split.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Silent Observer4/13/2006 12:14 AM

    I don't know why this popped into my head just now. Maybe the whole equality/balance thing between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. But I had a (male) institute teacher who was talking about how marriage is a contract between husband, wife, and God, and he said, "So it doesn't bother me that my wife has another Man in her life... or that she loves Him more than she does me... because I've got another Man too!"

    I guess if talk of Heavenly Mother was more prevalent, my teacher wouldn't have had to sound so weird!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Three comments.

    1)Good Paper. The counter arguments made in the comments expose the obvious reason why we don't know much about H.M. at this point.

    If Sunstone articles are written when President Hinkley makes a comment on "We should obey traffic lights" and they try to find the deep doctrinal meanings behind red and green lights, do you really think abominations would not occur with the Sacred Feminine?

    Look at what has been done to Mary. Do you think Mary wants people worshiping her or her son?

    There will come a time when this doctrine is revealed and discussed openly. Indeed, there will come a reckoning to any who have abused the female in any way. Believe it.

    But the time is not now.

    2)We pray to God the Father. God *IS* infinite, but only in his knowledge, power and majesty. His phyiscal location is finite.

    The Father has a role, and a time and a place. Others have their role and time and place in the Great Plan. Principle number one of the gospel is you pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

    There are no intercessions. If you pray to Christ, you are not praying to God, because the one God you should have is the Father, to whom the Son gives all glory and honor. They are One, as in One in purpose.

    3)The culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is rotten to the core. The doctrine and the culture are two separate things. Whenver the church does something based on doctrine it is resiliant, beautiful and clear. Whenver it does something based on tradition, it is ugly, muddy and boring.

    ReplyDelete
  12. anon.,

    1)I think the main reason why our Heavenly Mother is not discussed is because it seems to weird and the Church is trying to hard to cater to traditional Christianity for various reasons (anti-Gay agenda, missionary work, etc).
    Another big reason is because an open theology discussing the feminine divine would be too problematic for the sexist policies and practices of the Church today.

    2) God is NOT infinite in any traditional sense of Christiaon theology. It's merely an empty word Mormons hold on to. The Mormon denial of creatio ex nihilo and affirmation of free-will makes it impossible

    3) There is no Church Doctrine. There are only opinions that more than others affirm. "Doctrine" is merely a word we use to say that our opinions are better than others'. Joseph Smith's extreme dislike of creeds would aptly apply to the Church's (institutional and cultural) use of "Doctrine".

    ReplyDelete
  13. anon.,

    one more thing. yes. let's look at mary. one could argue that maryology was a result of a lack of feminine deity in traditional Christian theology. also, if you seriously look at Lehi's vision, you could see that the tree most likely represents Mary and not Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Was the world a better place when nuclear weapons entered the picture?

    Some would say yes, though granted they are very few in number.

    None would argue that it has changed the world.

    Some secrets, once let out of the bottle, will eventually fall into hands that will corrupt and misuse them.

    Was it necessary to use an atomic device at the end of WWII?

    Harry Truman thought so. He believed it was necessary to save a million American lives that would be lost upon an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

    Would Harry Truman have still ordered the bomb dropped if he knew that a state like Iran (much less Communist Russia) would eventually get ahold of it?

    I believe he would. Sometimes, the politics of the now outweigh the immediate need of the present.

    Leaving all reasons the the Lord has aside, those who actually bother to talk about this point of doctrine (as compared to people naive enough to believe the 'mainstream' view that Jesus was not married, did not have children children or that if there is a Heavenly Mother, She is at best a 'side' of the whole of creation), there are basically two camps.

    There are those who say that knowledge of the Sacred Feminine will be trounced and defiled by the most vicious generation since Sodom and Gommorah.

    There are those that say that billions of women, particurly LDS women, who live under the oppression of countless generations of carefully diabolic false doctrine that equates women with evil.

    Ultimately, remember this: God allows genocide, wars, terrorist, traitors, murderers, liars, theifs, demon-cults, secret combinations and the like to thrive upon the Earth because our purpose here is to Walk By Faith.

    There is little down in my mind that They (He and She) weep for these things.

    The question as to whether it would ultimately do more good to let the genie out of the bottle now is one I am glad I do not have to make.

    It will happen. There will be reprecussions that will shake the foundation of the world when it happens. Perchance it is in the third branch of the scriptural Triad. I do not know.

    What I do know is that the attitude of many (most) males in the church is wrong. It is usually not malicious, but it is in the subtly of their dire darkness that makes it so evil. These are men who would die for the Church and the Gospel (many of them) yet treat their wives as chattel in oh so many subtle ways.

    There will be an Accounting. Does that excuse the current circumstance?

    Perhaps not, but then again, sometimes the pragmatic good now can and will do much harm later. I do not enjoy the locking of the secrets. But I also understand at least some of the reasons behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. anon.,

    please leave some type of name so i feel like i'm responding to a person.

    Was the world a better place when nuclear weapons entered the picture?

    no.

    None would argue that it has changed the world.

    preposterous. many, including eisenhower, have argued that the introduction of nuclear weapons have changed the world for the worse. (not quite sure what this has to do with anything???)

    Was it necessary to use an atomic device at the end of WWII?

    no. many have well argued that japan was on the verge of surrendering and that the u.s. used it's atomic weapons in an effort to portray american military might.

    Harry Truman thought so. He believed it was necessary to save a million American lives that would be lost upon an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

    again, many have argued (and I believe eisenhower even said) that it was not necessary and that Truman was doing what I just mentioned.

    Would Harry Truman have still ordered the bomb dropped if he knew that a state like Iran (much less Communist Russia) would eventually get ahold of it?

    that was inevitable. read eisenhower's prophetic address on the industrial military complex.

    There are those who say that knowledge of the Sacred Feminine will be trounced and defiled by the most vicious generation since Sodom and Gommorah.

    there are some who say the earth is flat, the moon landing never occured, saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that sodom and gommorah were destroyed because of homosexuality. go on...

    There are those that say that billions of women, particurly LDS women, who live under the oppression of countless generations of carefully diabolic false doctrine that equates women with evil.

    i have said that. go on...

    Ultimately, remember this: God allows genocide, wars, terrorist, traitors, murderers, liars, theifs, demon-cults, secret combinations and the like to thrive upon the Earth because our purpose here is to Walk By Faith.

    this is a very simplistic and highly problematic claim. dig around my blog. i've written much on this elsewhere.

    There is little down in my mind that They (He and She) weep for these things.

    are you saying god does not weep over these things? read enoch's account. god suffers and weeps over our failings with eachother.

    The question as to whether it would ultimately do more good to let the genie out of the bottle now is one I am glad I do not have to make.

    it'll do more good. you have provided no argumentation as to what harm it would cause.

    It will happen.

    i'm confused. what will happen?

    There will be reprecussions that will shake the foundation of the world when it happens.

    it?

    Perchance it is in the third branch of the scriptural Triad.

    now i'm really lost.

    What I do know is that the attitude of many (most) males in the church is wrong. It is usually not malicious, but it is in the subtly of their dire darkness that makes it so evil. These are men who would die for the Church and the Gospel (many of them) yet treat their wives as chattel in oh so many subtle ways.

    amen.

    There will be an Accounting. Does that excuse the current circumstance?

    no it doesn't.

    Perhaps not, but then again, sometimes the pragmatic good now can and will do much harm later. I do not enjoy the locking of the secrets. But I also understand at least some of the reasons behind them.

    i see no good in keeping the divine mother in the closet.

    i'm really confused. did you agree or disagree with my thesis?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Call me Shadow.

    A few typos greatly altered the nature of my meaning.

    First, I meant 'none would doubt that the intercession of Nukes has changed the world'....

    Meaning that whether you agree with Truman or not, it has had a massive effect on global politics.

    Let me clarify and simply, since I have a tendancy to wander.

    Do I agree that there is, beyond doubt, a Divine Mother?

    Yes.

    Do I think that quite proably the primary reason for not mentioning Her is a strategic decision to keep the church in as positive a light as possible for as long as possible?

    Yes.

    Do I think that God has a reason for not ordering the GA to do elsewise?

    Yes.

    The Triad in question is very obscure doctrine. No offense, but if you don't know what I meant by it, it is better not discussed in a public forum.

    I will simply clarify my position that you are right, but that doesn't mean that the Lord's gospel is any less true, despite the fact that the Prophet and Quorum make mistakes, and sometimes refuse to admit that they have made mistakes. They are the Lord's servants, and I am not allowed to speak evil of them...of course, acknowledging waht is probably a mistake is an action and does not necessarily reflect on them directly.

    Which is the concrete way of saying that if a prophet like Nephi III can screw up and forget to include Samuel the Lamanite in the records, then our own leaders can screw up by omission.

    There will be an accounting. The doctrine will be revealed. Like the atomic bomb, it will have effects both good and ill.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A lot of words to justify your patriarchal religion.
    George Werner

    ps:
    Mary Daly is closer to the mark than you are my friend..

    ReplyDelete

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.