The Problem Of Enoch

[Acris Venator]

LDS feminists, in their push for ordination for women, cite page 19 of the Relief Society minutes of March 1842. The excerpt that they point to in particular:

that the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuous and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day. “

The mention of Enoch is a powerful one, and cannot be removed from the equation if LDS feminists are serious. The Relief Society envisioned here is a “select society separate from all of the evils of the world”. This sounds distinctly like the city of Enoch, the Zion community.

We read in JST Genesis 14:25-29:

27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name.

Feminists who assume that the Melchizedek Priesthood comes from temple endowments had better be 100% sure that they are right to seek out ordination for women. If Enoch is part of the equation, then Enoch's teachings mean something to their effort.

If this higher priesthood only comes from the voice of God, and if it is “inseparably connected to the powers of heaven” as per D&C 121:36, then these women agitating for ordination are knocking on the wrong door. And in the process, they are reaffirming mortal, fallible patriarchy as their only way to that voice of power.

This notion is laughable on its face. Women do not need men to mediate their relationship with Christ. It is promised to all who will go to the effort to “knock” on his terms.

But Enoch isn't just a problem for LDS feminists. He is a problem for the church, also.

You’ll recall that it is Enoch who delivers Moses 6:58-59.

58 Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified.

Which brings up the question: Who in the church actually teaches these things to their children like this? Who compares the water, blood, and spirit of birth to the water, spirit, and blood of Christ as if they are somehow complements? Who respects women for these symbols on the same level that we respect Christ for these notions of commandments, justification, and sanctification?

Practically no one.

Verse 59 says “inasmuch” and “even so”. Verse 58 says that this is a commandment that it be taught freely to our kids. This is Enoch we are talking about, the same guy who actually established an honest-to-God Zion community here on earth where everyone walked and talked with the Lord for 365 years. Yet this point never comes up in General Conference, and our children commonly have no concept of this teaching at all because this is simply not "freely" discussed within most of the families and wards in our very practical and symbol-averse culture.

We cannot claim that this teaching is part of the Law of Consecration because it is contained in the lesson manual for the Pearl of Great Price.

The reason I bring this up is because pushing for this Priesthood of Enoch through ordination, from men that do not commonly teach Enoch’s teaching unto the building of Zion on earth in the first place, comes across as as a massive lapse in logic for LDS feminists.

It pains me to say so, but if essentially no one in the equation cares for Enoch’s teaching about birth and the Atonement (most LDS feminists abhor it, and the Brethren mostly ignore it), then Enoch’s actual power does not appear to be the goal of either faction. So it seems, on the surface, that what both parties are actually concerned with is visible authority and office.

[Stone holm]

Not sure I am following what you are trying to say here.and exactly what this has to do with whether women should be ordained? Could you make it a little clearer? Until relatively recently it was understood that "man" or "men" was synonymous with human or mankind, so I assume there is some other point that I am not getting here.

[Acris Venator]

Could you make it a little clearer?

Sure:

1. LDS feminists cite Joseph Smith, who referenced Enoch.

2. Enoch compared motherhood to the Atonement in Moses 6 as if they are commensurate.

3. Because most LDS feminists detest this teaching (because the Brethren often identify motherhood as a feminine role and priesthood as a male role) Smith's reference to Enoch becomes problematic to the current push by LDS feminists to ordain women.

I apologize if this wasn't clear.

[blackstrap]

I personally have been taught all those things freely and often. To say that the Brethren ignore it is not quite true. They may speak around the topic of birth as it can be off-putting to some to be blunt .Nicodemus' question alludes to the process , and Christ clarified it. Besides , we are told that the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth is to be considered symbolic.

[BCSpace]

Besides , we are told that the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth is to be considered symbolic.

I would be interested in a quote on that if you have one so I can add it to SWK's doctrinal Eve created from Adam's rib as figurative quote.

[Acris Venator]

To say that the Brethren ignore it is not quite true.

Which era are you talking about? Can you show me a single talk by the brethren given in General Conference since David O McKay that discusses it?

They may speak around the topic of birth as it can be off-putting to some to be blunt .Nicodemus' question alludes to the process , and Christ clarified it.

I agree with you concerning its importance. But evidence of its discussion in scripture doesn't explain it's absence from the Latter-Day discourse.

Who cares if it is off-putting? Is it the doctrine of Christ or isn't it? Are we embarrassed by this stuff?

You may have been taught this principle as a child, and you may have been taught freely. But you are in no way representative of the norm on this issue. I grew up in the Mormon Corridor and never encountered it until I read the Pearl of Great Price on my own. Most Mormons simply do not compare the Atonement to childbirth.

[Stone holm]

I would be interested in a quote on that if you have one so I can add it to SWK's doctrinal Eve created from Adam's rib as figurative quote.

Read "The Discourses of Brigham Young" wherein he calls it fable and says that they were brought here from another planet.

[janderich]

I would be interested in a quote on that if you have one so I can add it to SWK's doctrinal Eve created from Adam's rib as figurative quote.

Here are a couple from Bruce R. McConkie:

For those whose limited spiritual understanding precludes a recitation of all the facts, the revealed account, in figurative language, speaks of Eve being created from Adam's rib. (Moses 3:21-25.) A more express scripture, however, speaks of "Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." (Moses 6:22. Italics added.) In a formal doctrinal pronouncement, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (See Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.) (From "Eve and the Fall," in Woman [1988] p. 60)

Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband Adam in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.) [From Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. [1966], p. 242]

[blackstrap]

. I grew up in the Mormon Corridor and never encountered it until I read the Pearl of Great Price on my own.

I'm glad that you have been reading the scriptures like the Brethren have a advised.

[blackstrap]

As an aside, yes I did grow up in the DOM era. Also, I do see the point of the Enoch implications.

[Stone holm]

With regard to the original topic, do not see how this pertains to women and the Priesthood.

[Lightbearer]

Which era are you talking about? Can you show me a single talk by the brethren given in General Conference since David O McKay that discusses it?

I agree with you concerning its importance. But evidence of its discussion in scripture doesn't explain it's absence from the Latter-Day discourse.

Who cares if it is off-putting? Is it the doctrine of Christ or isn't it? Are we embarrassed by this stuff?

You may have been taught this principle as a child, and you may have been taught freely. But you are in no way representative of the norm on this issue. I grew up in the Mormon Corridor and never encountered it until I read the Pearl of Great Price on my own. Most Mormons simply do not compare the Atonement to childbirth.

You must not have listened, this doctrine is specifically taught in a manual that the Church has been using for 30 plus years, in fact I have taught it personally countless times as a Ward Mission leader and a Missionary:

"With baptism we begin a new way of life. That is why we call it a rebirth. Jesus said that unless we are born of the water and of the spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom of God (see John 3:3–5). This principle was explained clearly to Adam:

“Inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten” (Moses 6:59).

The Apostle Paul said that after our baptism we should begin a new life: “We are buried with him by baptism; … even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). One of the great blessings of baptism is that it provides us with a new start on our way toward our eternal goal." (Chapter 20: Baptism,” Gospel Principles, 129)

As for the women who want to be ordained, they are apostates, but the rebirth of the spirit is a core doctrine of the restored Gospel and it has been taught everywhere I have ever been in the Church. We certainly are not embarrassed by it and such a suggestion is groundless.

[Stone holm]

You must not have listened, this doctrine is specifically taught in a manual that the Church has been using for 30 plus years, in fact I have taught it personally countless times as a Ward Mission leader and a Missionary:

As for the women who want to be ordained, they are apostates, but the rebirth of the spirit is a core doctrine of the restored Gospel and it has been taught everywhere I have ever been in the Church. We certainly are not embarrassed by it and such a suggestion is groundless.

Whoa, I think that is a bit harsh to say that women who support the ordination of women "apostates", you have any authority for that other than tradition and your opinion? The term "apostate" is not a term that should be lightly thrown around.

[Lightbearer]

Whoa, I think that is a bit harsh to say that women who support the ordination of women "apostates", you have any authority for that other than tradition and your opinion? The term "apostate" is not a term that should be lightly thrown around.

No I do not think it harsh to say that at all. Sonya Johnson (over 30 years ago) was an apostate and all of those that try to protest the general authorities of the Church and force their will on the Church are by definition apostates. I never use the term lightly and believe one should not be afraid of the term because often the truth is considered harsh. So while one can have "opinions" or private interpretations of doctrines that may not necessarily make them apostate, when they start holding rallies and alternate "Priesthood Sessions" and web sites that condemn the Church for not giving them their way, yes I would call that apostate.

[mfbukowski]

2. Enoch compared motherhood to the Atonement in Moses 6 as if they are commensurate.

Not sure where you want to take this- to me it was a metaphor about the atonement giving us (spiritual) life- which is a beautiful symbolic reference and

powerful imagery.

In no way is motherhood "commensurate" with the atonement, nor is that what it says.

Also, I, like others here, fail to see how this all aligns with the Priesthood or women receiving it.

[Stone holm]

No I do not think it harsh to say that at all. Sonya Johnson (over 30 years ago) was an apostate and all of those that try to protest the general authorities of the Church and force their will on the Church are by definition apostates. I never use the term lightly and believe one should not be afraid of the term because often the truth is considered harsh. So while one can have "opinions" or private interpretations of doctrines that may not necessarily make them apostate, when they start holding rallies and alternate "Priesthood Sessions" and web sites that condemn the Church for not giving them their way, yes I would call that apostate.

Yes it is harsh to apply it to some who are merely calling for prayerful consideration of their views.

[Stone holm]

No I do not think it harsh to say that at all. Sonya Johnson (over 30 years ago) was an apostate and all of those that try to protest the general authorities of the Church and force their will on the Church are by definition apostates. I never use the term lightly and believe one should not be afraid of the term because often the truth is considered harsh. So while one can have "opinions" or private interpretations of doctrines that may not necessarily make them apostate, when they start holding rallies and alternate "Priesthood Sessions" and web sites that condemn the Church for not giving them their way, yes I would call that apostate.

I think you are painting with a very wide brush. Not all of these women are Sonya Johnsons, many are just asking for prayerful consideration of the issue. Apostasy is a very serious charge to level at a member and has connotations and implications that the person is denying the Church in fundamental respects, such is inconsistent with someone who is asking the Church authorities to prayerfully consider change of som

[CV75]

It pains me to say so, but if essentially no one in the equation cares for Enoch’s teaching about birth and the Atonement (most LDS feminists abhor it, and the Brethren mostly ignore it), then Enoch’s actual power does not appear to be the goal of either faction. So it seems, on the surface, that what both parties are actually concerned with is visible authority and office.

I agree that the observation that LDS feminists' and leaders' actual concern is visible authority and office is most superficial!

The core of Priesthood, Zion and the Atonement is Christ Himself, whose Spirit faithful LDS seek to have with them. The principles you discussed in your post all come together in the Sacrament, which men, women and children partake of often. The Sacrament and what it means is taught from generation to generation.

[Stone holm]

I agree that the observation that LDS feminists' and leaders' actual concern is visible authority and office is most superficial!

The core of Priesthood, Zion and the Atonement is Christ Himself, whose Spirit faithful LDS seek to have with them. The principles you discussed in your post all come together in the Sacrament, which men, women and children partake of often. The Sacrament and what it means is taught from generation to generation.

Yeah, that's nice, so if that's the case why are we throwing up such a big fuss about not extending the Priesthood to women?

[CV75]

Yeah, that's nice, so if that's the case why are we throwing up such a big fuss about not extending the Priesthood to women?

It's more than nice, and it is he case.

Who is "we"? How is the "fuss" manifest? And since the Priesthood is extended to women, how would extending it be out of order?

Edited May 3, 2013 by CV75

[Stone holm]

It's more than nice, and it is he case.

Who is "we"? How is the "fuss" manifest? And since the Priesthood is extended to women, how would extending it be out of order?

Did I miss a memo when, outside of Temple Ordinances did we extend the Priesthood by ordaining women?

[Chaos]

As for the women who want to be ordained, they are apostates, ss.

You will be removed if you condemn other posters' worthiness or church standing. And shorten your tag line to a few lines please.

[blackstrap]

Suppose the Brethren prayerfully consider the ordination of women ,and after due consideration ,present a unified stance that such ordination is not the will of the Lord. Will those women who continue to agitate and petition then be considered apostate and dealt with accordingly ?

[Stone holm]

Suppose the Brethren prayerfully consider the ordination of women ,and after due consideration ,present a unified stance that such ordination is not the will of the Lord. Will those women who continue to agitate and petition then be considered apostate and dealt with accordingly ?

Well lets consider the situation that Pres. McKay found himself in. He had come to the conclusion that the denial of the Priesthood to the Africans was not based on doctrine but on tradition. He had been urged by one of his counselor to just lift the ban administratively, but he felt that it had been in place for too long to do that without a revelation and he prayed, but did not get it. So it had to wait for Pres. Kimball to get the revelation. So I guess if the women have been denied the function either since King Josiah purged the Temple or since St Augustine purged the activities of Mary Magdalene I suspect that it might take several administrations worth of prayer in this case, so I would be wary of laying the charge of apostasy on anyone's head anytime soon.

[Acris Venator]

this doctrine is specifically taught in a manual that the Church has been using for 30 plus years, in fact I have taught it personally countless times as a Ward Mission leader and a Missionary:

The POGP manual is not taught every year. It is usually studied in tandem with the Old Testament. So you have not taught this doctrine "countless times" by any stretch of the imagination. The most you would have likely taught this doctrine in the last 30 years, in the course of the Church's curriculum, is seven times.

Additionally, this doctrine is not part of the Gospel Principles manual that is taught to new members. It is in the POGP manual only. So your time as a Ward Mission Leader would have removed you from the curriculum in question, and your equivocation becomes even more egregious.