Sex changes - "become great men"

General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?

"Cultivate and employ generously your noble, manly instincts of care and mercy, first to your family and then to others. May you always hunger and thirst after righteousness within the framework of the revealed gospel of Jesus Christ. May you have an eternal perspective as you go about your angelic cause of doing good so that it will not only lead you to become great men but ultimately to become kings in the eternities." James E. Faust, "How Near to the Angels," New Era, Mar, 1999, 4.

This quote also seems to work just fine when addressing men instead of women. Talk of being caring and merciful might get us thinking about women but it's more likely to get us thinking about Heavenly Father and Jesus, and just as likely to bring to mind our father or grandfathers or even a friend who's a man. Womanliness or femaleness has little, if anything, to do with care and mercy. The other potential clue that the Faust here is talking about women and not men is his reference to "your angelic cause." I would dare say that we typically associate angels and the adjective "angelic" with women,

and yet all the angels mentioned in scripture (with the exception of two possibly evil stork-winged women bearing a woman representing wickedness off to Babylon) are men. No female angels, isn't that interesting? It would very much appear that angelic causes are male causes.

I'm starting to think James Faust was completely off base addressing these thoughts to women.

Sex changes - "near to divinity"

General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?

"Fatherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assume by males. It places him who honors his holy calling and service next to the angels." James R. Clark from Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 Vols. (1965-75), 6:178.


If you ask me, this quote worked out perfectly for men. The fact that Jimmy Reuben here was speaking about women only shows that he had not fully thought through his reasoning.

The temple - the invitations to leave

At a couple of points in the endowment ceremony attendees are invited to leave if they do not feel comfortable or ready to make the covenants about to be presented. These invites really bothered me for a few reasons.

1. My first time through I deeply doubted whether I should go through with the covenants. Maybe I really wasn't worthy and they were calling me out. Maybe they were going to be really weird covenants that I would honestly not want to take on.

2. Later I realized that they were asking me to make a decision about something I knew nothing about. How is that fair? How could I have possibly known what was best for me when they hadn't yet explained what the stakes were?

3. The vast majority everyone going through the temple in any given session has already been through before and are going through vicariously for someone who has died. Why would a repeat attender ever back out? Frankly I can't see why they would. Is the spirit of the deceased ever going to prompt someone to back out of the endowment on its behalf? Probably not if it's there in the temple waiting to receive the ordinances. So who exactly would ever back out of the temple covenants besides kids in their late teens and early twenties going through for the first time?

4. Has anyone ever backed out? How could someone back out when you're surrounded by so many people who are choosing to stay, many of whom might be immediate and extended family, friends, and members of his or her congregation? The pressure to go through with the temple ordinances is tremendous. It's peer pressure with your eternal salvation on the line.

It struck me as a nefarious set up. While at the time I still rejected the term, I think the best way to describe the scenario is "cultish". 

No, no! It had to be holy. Shoot, it even says "Holiness to the LORD" out over the entrance to the temple! Doubt your doubts! The temple endowment's the best!