NOM

In my initiation into pagan beliefs I came across a book called “Mysteries of the Dark Moon : The healing power of the Dark Goddess”. I realize that most will not be into or accepting of the concept of the Matriarchy and worship of The Goddess and other goddesses but it’s important to know your history to know where the world’s dominant religions came from. Archeology and anthropology bears out the fact that most of the world’s societies pre 6,000 BCE were matriarchal in structure and were goddess worshipping, and where all the highest positions were reserved for the female priestesses and the high priestess.

Somewhere around this time the patriarchal based warrior tribes, of whom the Aryans and Semites were among, overthrew and destroyed most of the matriarchal tribes and attempted to eliminate all vestiges of the “Old Religions”. The Goddess was changed into a male God and the Patriarchy set about eliminating all forms of goddess worship and subjugating womankind under the thumb of the patriarchy. Of course we all know that the only female given veneration in Christianity had to be a Virgin—enough said.

Whether you believe in the old religion of goddess worshiping paganism or not (I happen to) makes no difference to the fact that all patriarchal based religions including and especially Mormonism exist as primarily a reaction to matriarchal based religion. At best you can say the major religions replaced female centered myths with male ones so that men could dominate and enslave women. At worst you can say they destroyed the true original belief systems with a warped and bastardized one.

Conclusion: People like Wilcox and sexist LDS policies are merely the symptom of a system rotten to its core. You can’t reform Mormonism because it’s entirely based on a false and made-up pretence. Whatever policy change you make it’s still Elohim and Jehovah based. Changes are insidious window dressing. So what if wives don’t have to say they submit to or obey their husbands in the temple? They still need to learn the “Patriarchal grip” to enter heaven. All patriarchal based religions and beliefs are dying a slow death over these next few generations. Let them die.

Women were also the keepers of the mystery traditions and the preparers of holy sacraments since prehistoric times. By the early middle ages they had been rebranded by the patriarchal church as witches and suffered horribly, simply for continuing to do what had once been considered the essential foundations of religion.

I don’t think because something is old it is necessarily better or correct. I am in favor of equality in the here and now because it is the right thing to do. Not sure I need to go back 6000 years to prove my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where does the "traditional family unit" fit in this history?

I've heard that as far as human history goes, it is more or less a "modern invention."

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:33 pm I don’t think because something is old it is necessarily better or correct. I am in favor of equality in the here and now because it is the right thing to do. Not sure I need to go back 6000 years to prove my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I respect the perspective but my point wasn’t that older is better but rather the Christian concept of God wasn’t magically created in a vacuum by divine manifestation but a reaction to the times. Just like Mormonism was a reaction to the times in upstate New York in the 1800s. Sometimes it gives a fresh perspective to some people to know the origins of their beliefs

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:02 pm Where does the "traditional family unit" fit in this history?

I've heard that as far as human history goes, it is more or less a "modern invention."

Lol I think you answered your own question. Kind of makes the Proclamation on the Family sound nonsensical when you consider the idea that it’s based on Bronze Age opinions that were enforced at the point of a sword!!

I'll tell you this, I know MANY women (current and former LDS) who have embraced Wicca, Tarot, and crystals, etc. The LDS Church has itself to blame when they froze women out of performing sacred religious rituals in the LDS tradition like banning them from anointing other women before childbirth and banning them from participating in healing rituals and the laying on of hands. Very foolish of the LDS Church. I can see all these women drifting away now and embracing these other traditions that celebrate women (and anyone) performing spiritual rituals.

Men had their place in the fertility rites of the old stag hunt festival, but they tend to muck things up when taking on the spiritual leadership of the tribe. Just look at the recent Brad Wilcox debacle as an example. It's like a mystery cult drowning in its own hubris.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:02 pm Where does the "traditional family unit" fit in this history?

In North America between 1830 and 1920.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:12 am

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:02 pm Where does the "traditional family unit" fit in this history?

In North America between 1830 and 1920.

Ugh...

I think you're referring to the "Traditional MORmON Family Unit of the founders of the religion which cannot be named???"

MORmONism attempting to say "This is Elohim's version of the family, and it has always been so!" is quite funny/sad. You only have to step back just a bit over 100 years in MORmON history to see that "This has NOT always been so."

Take a step back and look at the history of the entirety humanity itself, and the "traditional family unit" seems to be a bit of a joke.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:11 am Take a step back and look at the history of the entirety humanity itself, and the "traditional family unit" seems to be a bit of a joke.

It's something that neither Jesus nor Paul seemed to hold in high regard.

Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

For the night is dark and full of terrors….

Why does there have to be this idea that one gender has to be in charge. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. In a enlightened society power at all levels would be shared. Those best suited or qualified would fill position based on qualifications not gender.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reuben wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:47 am Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

Somehow I think my central point got sidetracked and lost in the discussion. If it’s my fault in my use of words I’ll take the blame. This isn’t a call to a war of the sexes or to turn society upside down. People should be free to live egalitarian or however they choose as long as they don’t hurt others. What is rotten with most organized religion (especially Mormonism) is that it’s predicated on the Universe being run by a supreme being with a phallus. I find it interesting that if you dig into ancient history this was not always so but seems to have arisen out of an ancient battle of the sexes when the “Patriarchal order” was introduced.

My point is if TSCC is worshipping a non-existent God that was created by Bronze Age people for political purposes then everything Mormonism and the Standard Works is built on is mythology. That’s why I say it makes more sense to tear the whole thing down rather than reform it from within with kinder and gentler apostles.

Whatever you replace Mormonism with in your lives is up to you as is the type of life you ultimately live. Cheers to all.

Reuben wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:47 am Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

In “matriarchal” societies, it did not mean that women ruled over men. There really has never been a society that anthropologists know about where women ruled over men. When a society was matriarchal, it meant that heredity was followed through the mother, a boy would inherit from his maternal uncle, not his father. Many of the Native American cultures were matriarchal, but the tribes chief was male. The female shaman was respected, but she didn’t run the tribe. A woman could divorce her husband by moving his junk onto the front porch. So, he comes home from hunting and finds his bed roll outside the teepee, and knows he needs to find another place to sleep, back home to mama. Uncles trained their sister’s boys in how to hunt, and the chief’s son didn’t get to be chief, but that went to his sister’s oldest son. Men were valuable to the tribe because the tribe needed warriors to defend the weaker women and children and men hunted but women gardened and contributed to the food supply. Both sexes were valued by the tribe. The chief was in charge, but he had a council of elders to make decisions and there were both men and women on the council.

That doesn’t sound like “women ruling over men” but a society where men and women both contributed to leadership. But the men who first studied these societies thought men ruling was “normal” and so they called this different kind of society “matriarchal” as if the women were chief and had 45 husbands. The real name for these societies should be egalitarian/matrilineal, meaning one sex did not rule over the other, but heredity goes through the mother.

That sounds a heck of a lot better to me than the Biblical society where women were property and Abraham let pharaoh marry his wife because she was nothing more to him than his camel. That is “men bad” and we would like to get away from that crap so that we women can like y’all.

alas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 8:42 pm

Reuben wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:47 am Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

In “matriarchal” societies, it did not mean that women ruled over men. There really has never been a society that anthropologists know about where women ruled over men. When a society was matriarchal, it meant that heredity was followed through the mother, a boy would inherit from his maternal uncle, not his father. Many of the Native American cultures were matriarchal, but the tribes chief was male. The female shaman was respected, but she didn’t run the tribe. A woman could divorce her husband by moving his junk onto the front porch. So, he comes home from hunting and finds his bed roll outside the teepee, and knows he needs to find another place to sleep, back home to mama. Uncles trained their sister’s boys in how to hunt, and the chief’s son didn’t get to be chief, but that went to his sister’s oldest son. Men were valuable to the tribe because the tribe needed warriors to defend the weaker women and children and men hunted but women gardened and contributed to the food supply. Both sexes were valued by the tribe. The chief was in charge, but he had a council of elders to make decisions and there were both men and women on the council.

That doesn’t sound like “women ruling over men” but a society where men and women both contributed to leadership. But the men who first studied these societies thought men ruling was “normal” and so they called this different kind of society “matriarchal” as if the women were chief and had 45 husbands. The real name for these societies should be egalitarian/matrilineal, meaning one sex did not rule over the other, but heredity goes through the mother.

That sounds a heck of a lot better to me than the Biblical society where women were property and Abraham let pharaoh marry his wife because she was nothing more to him than his camel. That is “men bad” and we would like to get away from that crap so that we women can like y’all.

Thanks for the education Alas. I was waiting for your insights

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 6:07 pm It's something that neither Jesus nor Paul seemed to hold in high regard.

True. But only because both of them thought the end of the age was imminent.

Greek/Roman culture was extremely male dominated and so was Judaic culture. It's why the end times message of Jesus and Paul was so attractive to women. It preached that this top down hierarchy of men oppressing women and children would be overturned by God.

Reuben wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:47 am Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't know about them?

Men don't need to be all fragile to accept that men have dominated and continue to dominate the power structures of the world. It's right in front of our faces. This straw man of women "enslaving", "oppressing", and "dominating" men just sounds silly. Nobody is arguing that or has ever argued that. Let's put our big boy underwear on and look at reality and create a better world.

stealthbishop wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:22 am Hmmm, I wonder why we don't know about them?