289 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

divinenature, on 01 May 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

There are many women who cannot get pregnant or lactate, too. Nature can keep many of us from doing many things. There is nothing in female genetics that keeps her from placing her hands on the heads of others and blessing them or fulfilling a leadership role.

See above.   There is nothing preventing YOU from doing this within a few weeks from now- after you are trained and learn the ordinances.

[Log]

I've seen Legacy - there's nothin' that prevents women from laying hands on the sick and blessing them.

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

there's nothin' that prevents women from laying hands on the sick and blessing them.

Do it all the time, just yesterday in fact.

[Log]

See, what if the priesthood is simply so that the heavens will listen to men?  The heavens already listen to women.

[mfbukowski]

Well the good news is that I think we have conclusively proven on this thread that women are NOT "more spiritual" than men.

Hurrah.    

[calmoriah]

mfbukowski, on 01 May 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Well the good news is that I think we have conclusively proven on this thread that women are NOT "more spiritual" than men.

Hurrah.

Bless you, dear.

I for one never thought so.

[calmoriah]

mfbukowski, on 01 May 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

See above.   There is nothing preventing YOU from doing this within a few weeks from now- after you are trained and learn the ordinances.

I think it is a shame that such is not being taken full advantage of by women, especially for those who want to expand the ways they may interact with the Lord and serve others.  When we make full use of the gifts God has already given us, he will deem us ready to receive more.

Edited by calmoriah, 01 May 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[mfbukowski]

calmoriah, on 01 May 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I think it is a shame that such is not being taken full advantage of by women, especially for those who want to expand the ways they may interact with the Lord and serve others.

I don't know a sister who does it who would give it up except due to health issues etc.

But I will also say that goes for the brethren as well!  

Equally.

[calmoriah]

mfbukowski, on 01 May 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

But I will also say that goes for the brethren as well!  

I feel bad for the single men who are required to give it up once they hit a certain age.

[Mark Beesley]

divinenature, on 01 May 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

And even if only a dozen women want to be ordained to the priesthood so they can participate in ordinances with their children they should be able to. Just because some women don't want something doesn't mean that it should be denied to all women.

You are absolutely, 100 percent correct.  The only reason the Priesthood should be denied to any woman is because God has not ordained that women should be given that particular calling.  If you have an issue with that, take it up with God, but remember not to seek to counsel Him, but to receive counsel from Him.

Quote

I imagine you might be surprised how many women would enjoy blessing their baby or confirming their child or even just standing as a witness to a baptism or sealing. But we've been taught not to want that and spend lots of time in Relief Society convincing ourselves we don't want it so you might be hard-pressed to find many women who would admit it out loud.

Your ablility to bless your children is limited only by your own creativity and faith.

(Really, you sisters spend lots of time in RS convincing yourselves you don't want the Priesthood?  Does it come up on a weekly basis?)

From a personal standpoint, I wish the sisters could hold the Priesthood.  But overriding that is my desire to belong to a Church that is led by revelation and not by the whims of the membership.  I guess the question for you is, Do you trust the Lord?

[Log]

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

From a personal standpoint, I wish the sisters could hold the Priesthood.

Why?

[mfbukowski]

calmoriah, on 01 May 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

I feel bad for the single men who are required to give it up once they hit a certain age.

I feel sorry for the bishops who are required to give it up too!  

The whole point is that it is so spiritually inspiring that once you become an ordinance worker- male or female- you don't want to give it up- period.

To me, that in itself is incredible evidence for the divinity of the work.   I mean speaking in terms of the natural man- who would want to stand around saying the same words over and over again, holding your arms out until they ache and not getting paid for it- and do this week in week out-  and then NOT want to ever give it up?

To me, that is incontrovertible evidence that there is something "special" about the temple!   There can be no question- why else would people do that?

[Mark Beesley]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Why?

Why not?  (Other than because the Lord has not extended that calling to them?)

[Log]

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Why not?  (Other than because the Lord has not extended that calling to them?)

Here's why not: because the Lord has not extended that calling to them.  I have no grounds, no affirmative reasons, to wish things to be different.  They are what they are.

So, I ask again: why?  What are your affirmative reasons, your grounds, for desiring things to be different?

[calmoriah]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

So, I ask again: why?  What are your affirmative reasons, your grounds, for desiring things to be different?

I would suspect at least one is because he would like everyone to be happy and satisfied in their lives and this is one area which some women desire to have.

[Log]

calmoriah, on 01 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I would suspect at least one is because he would like everyone to be happy and satisfied in their lives and this is one area which some women desire to have.

Possibly so - I can also see the same reasoning being applied to homogamy, for example.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Possibly so - I can also see the same reasoning being applied to homogamy, for example.

If there weren't other reasons to impose a restriction, then I see no issue with using immediate happiness and satisfaction as the main determinator in who gets what.

However, I think in many, many things there is something else that needs to be considered, especially in spiritual things, such as God's Will.

Edited by calmoriah, 01 May 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Mark Beesley]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Here's why not: because the Lord has not extended that calling to them.  I have no grounds, no affirmative reasons, to wish things to be different.  They are what they are.

So, I ask again: why?  What are your affirmative reasons, your grounds, for desiring things to be different?

Becaue my vision is not as expansive as the Lord's, and I think it is generally better to be inclusionary than exclusionary.  I wish other things as well that are not as they are by divine decree.  For example, I wish we did not use the same organs for waste elimination that we use for procreation . . .   . . . .  There's a thread-killer.  

Edited to add:  Also, what calmoriah said . . .

Edited by Mark Beesley, 01 May 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[wenglund]

divinenature, on 01 May 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

And even if only a dozen women want to be ordained to the priesthood so they can participate in ordinances with their children they should be able to. Just because some women don't want something doesn't mean that it should be denied to all women.

Wow...now there is a heavy dose of gender/priesthood envy. Not pretty.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 01 May 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well who wouldn't be jealous of us pretty boys, right Wade? We so fly!