Ordain Women Group Publishes "six Discussions" To Proselytize For Its Agenda

[Gray]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. What is relevant to me and those looking through the same lens as me, is God's will, and not mankind's inane politics of equality. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

"he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

[wenglund]

I don't know of any revelation banning women from the priesthood or from any priesthood office

 

Okay...so you suffer from selective blindness. The good news is, Christ offers a cure. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

"he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

 

I am familiar with the relatively few cherry-picked scriptures that some people tend to distortingly lean on in weak justification for their worship of the politics of equality, seemingly mindless of the fact that the gospel is about salvation and progression unto Christ rather than about equality. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

"he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Please view that passage in its internal context.

 

It speaks of those "that come unto him," and of those, it says he denieth none, that they are all alike unto him in terms of his acceptance of them. It doesn't say that everyone will be given the precise same roles, assignments and tasks in his church and kingdom.

 

I have never been called as a bishop or a stake president, perhaps never will be. Should I then accuse God or the Church of practicing inequality?

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Okay...so you suffer from selective blindness. The good news is, Christ offers a cure. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think a cure would be seeing a revelation banning women from the priesthood. But we don't have that in LDS scriptural canon. 

[Gray]

Please view that passage in its internal context.

 

It speaks of those "that come unto him," and of those, it says he denieth none, that they are all alike unto to him in terms of his acceptance of them. It doesn't say that everyone will be given the precise same roles, assignments and tasks in his church and kingdom.

 

I have never been called as a bishop or a stake president, perhaps never will be. Should I then accuse God or the Church of practicing inequality?

 

It says all are alike unto God. That tells me He doesn't give assignments based on gender or race. I'd say assignments would be based more on individual ability. 

 

There are certainly many women who have the ability to lead, who are denied the opportunity by tradition. 

 

I'm with you - I wouldn't make a good stake president. I'm not a leader. 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Gray

[cdowis]

I don't know of any revelation banning women from the priesthood or from any priesthood office

 

Please help me ==> what exactly is your point. 

 

Are you confusing us with the historic Christian church which does not carry the keys of the priesthood, and only relies on their particular interpretation of the Bible. Not every revelation is contained nor need to be written in canonized scripture.

 

Elder Oaks made this whole issue quite clear.

 

Are you saying that every policy needs a scriptural reference. 

 

"he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

 

 

Again, I ask you the same question  ==>> what exactly are you trying to say?  Please speak clearly, plainly and don't mumble.

Edited May 30, 2014 by cdowis

[wenglund]

I think a cure would be seeing a revelation banning women from the priesthood. But we don't have that in LDS scriptural canon. 

 

Part of your blindness is from looking at things exactly backwards, if not also a measure of obscuring nuance challenges.. The cure, then, is to view things right-side up. So, let me be of help...

 

Within the Church, the priesthood, by its very nature, is something that is granted by authority and not presumptuously taken. This means that unless the priesthood is proactively and authoritatively granted (By God, himself, through his authorized representative), then it is not authorized, and is effectively banned to those not so granted--as in the case of children under the age of 12 and non-members as well as women.

 

As such, rationally, the question ought not be whether there is any scriptural revelations explicitly banning women from holding the priesthood, but whether there are any scriptures explicitly or even implicitly authorizing their ordination (Elder Oak's inspired talk on priesthood keys speaks to this issue), and if not, then logically it is tantamount to their being banned from the priesthood, as also children under the age of 12 and non-members.

 

To me, this seems so simple and obvious as to go without saying, though I understand that it may not be so easily seen by those beset with the dense fog of political indoctrination and social pressure..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 30, 2014 by wenglund

[Gray]

Please help me ==> what exactly is your point. 

 

Are you confusing us with the historic Christian church which does not carry the keys of the priesthood, and only relies on their particular interpretation of the Bible. Not every revelation is contained nor need to be written in canonized scripture.

 

Elder Oaks made this whole issue quite clear.

 

Are you saying that every policy needs a scriptural reference. 

 

 

Again, I ask you the same question  ==>> what exactly are you trying to say?  Please speak clearly, plainly and don't mumble.

 

I'm saying the ban on women holding the priesthood is apparently based on tradition, not any claim of revelation. 

[Gray]

Part of your blindness is from looking at things exactly backwards, if not also a measure of obscuring nuance challenges.. The cure, then, is to view things right-side up. So, let me be of help...

 

Within the Church, the priesthood, by its very nature, is something that is granted by authority and not presumptuously taken. This means that unless the priesthood is proactively and authoritatively granted (By God, himself, through his authorized representative), then it is not authorized, and is effectively banned to those not so granted--as in the case of children under the age of 12 and non-members as well as women.

 

As such, rationally, the question ought not be whether there is any scriptural revelations explicitly banning women from holding the priesthood, but whether there are any scriptures explicitly or even implicitly authorizing their ordination (Elder Oak's inspired talk on priesthood keys speaks to this issue), and if not, then logically it is tantamount to their being banned from the priesthood, as also children under the age of 12 and non-members.

 

To me, this seems so simple and obvious as to go without saying, though I understand that it may not be so easily seen by those beset with the dense fog of political indoctrination and social pressure..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

There is a solid tradition of women holding priesthood roles in the Bible. That tradition was lost for a long time to various Christian denominations. Our current policy seems to be inherited from Christianity, rather than any revelation. 

 

The traditions of our fathers is not a solid basis for denying the priesthood to women. 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

It says all are alike unto God. That tells me He doesn't give assignments based on gender or race.

That is your own personal reading of it, one that is not sustained by the text.

[cdowis]

I'm saying the ban on women holding the priesthood is apparently based on tradition, not any claim of revelation. 

 

Thank you.

[Senator]

If OW were genuinely concerned about affecting equality they would also be advocating for the priesthood to be given to children under the age of twelve, non-members, family pets, etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well there you have it ladies!

 

......you can't have the priesthood.............because then we would have to give it to the dogs

Edited May 30, 2014 by Senator

[why me]

Well there you have it ladies!

 

......you can't have the priesthood.............because then we would have to give to the dogs

Wade does have a point regardless of his flamboyance. If OW were honest with the media they would also support girls holding the priesthood especially since they would be eligible for the priesthood just like the boys are. But OW seems to ignore the ordaining girls because this would complicate their message. 

[Senator]

Wade does have a point regardless of his flamboyance.

I think the point is absurd.

If OW were honest with the media they would also support girls holding the priesthood especially since they would be eligible for the priesthood just like the boys are. But OW seems to ignore the ordaining girls because this would complicate their message.

Has OW spoken against girls holding the priesthood? Girls holding the priesthood, like the boys seem rational.

But dogs......not so much.

Can you see that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think a cure would be seeing a revelation banning women from the priesthood. But we don't have that in LDS scriptural canon. 

Yeah we do. I guess you have not read the scriptures??? If you want to cherry pick verses of scripture you can come to the conclusion that women should have the priesthood.

 

Alma 13 and Hebrews comes to mind. Not to mention many verses in the D&C that outlines the priesthood and how it should be conferred and who is called to hold it.  But go a head an ignore it because it is not PC to have these views.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the point is absurd.

 

Actually, reductio ad aburdum is a recognized form of argumentation and debate, one that can be very effective.

 

To quote Wikipedia it "seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,^[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

 

I think it safe to say that Wade fully understands that  giving the priesthood to household pets is absurd, but he's saying that the notion of absolute equality in priesthood ordination, taken to its logical extreme, would lead to that conclusion.

 

That's how I understand him, anyway. He can clarify as necessary.

 

It's a valid point, one that is not persuasively rebutted by distorting his meaning.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

There is a solid tradition of women holding priesthood roles in the Bible. That tradition was lost for a long time to various Christian denominations. Our current policy seems to be inherited from Christianity, rather than any revelation. 

 

The traditions of our fathers is not a solid basis for denying the priesthood to women. 

 

Evidently, the dense fog of political indoctrination and social pressure is not only blinding to the obvious, but may also fool the eye into seeing wisps of historical conjecture as "solid tradition," if not also confound the mind into thinking that divine revelation for things like Church organization, is a product of scholastic readings of ancient scriptures (i.e. trusting in the arm of flesh dressed in the robes of the false priesthood--as Hugh Nibley called it) rather than in the manner in which the scriptures were derived to begin with--i.e. modern declaration of God's will to his authorized prophets (i.e. trusting in the arm of God).

 

Is it any wonder then, that the arm-of-flesh trusters presumptuously view themselves as in a position to dictate to God and his chosen leaders who should or shouldn't have God's authority?

 

Whatever the case, during this age of the fullness of time, there is no authoritative record where God has bestowed the keys, let alone revealed his will for women to receive the priesthood, and as such reason suggests, if not the Spirit also, that women are not permitted to hold the priesthood any more than children under the age of 12 and non-members. Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buzzard]

If you knew me, it would be easy to see that there is no polish. In fact, when I started in my present ward, the rumor went around that I am a retired Navy Seal. Yet, even the most hardened of us can be changed, and I thank Heavenly Father for that.

So a woman who likes to wear a Muslim-style headscarf comes to church, and the rumor spreads that she was a Navy Seal? THAT has got to be one of the great all-time rumors/gossip I have ever heard. 

[Senator]

I think it safe to say that Wade fully understands that the notion of giving the priesthood to household pets is absurd, but he's saying that the notion of absolute equality in priesthood ordination, taken to its logical extreme would lead to that conclusion.

Then lets talk rationally, and not in logical extremes.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then lets talk rationally, and not in logical extremes.

Using reductio ad absurdum to make one's point is talking rationally. If absolute, unqualified equality in priesthood ordination would entail giving the priesthood to toddlers and household pets, and if one would find that unacceptable, then obviously one does not really embrace absolute, unqualified equality in priesthood ordination.

 

Please peruse the Wikipedia link to understand better what reductio ad absurdum is.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[EllenMaksoud]

So a woman who likes to wear a Muslim-style headscarf comes to church, and the rumor spreads that she was a Navy Seal? THAT has got to be one of the great all-time rumors/gossip I have ever heard. 

They have been mostly, uncommonly kind at my ward. Still there were some very good things I learned while Muslim. Unyielding modesty is one. While everyone is out buying swim suits that seem far to blatant to me, the Burqini I bought seems just fine. Sometimes following your heart is the only thing you can do.

[Gray]

That is your own personal reading of it, one that is not sustained by the text.

 

Agree on the former, disagree on the latter

[Gray]

Yeah we do. I guess you have not read the scriptures??? If you want to cherry pick verses of scripture you can come to the conclusion that women should have the priesthood.

 

Alma 13 and Hebrews comes to mind. Not to mention many verses in the D&C that outlines the priesthood and how it should be conferred and who is called to hold it.  But go a head an ignore it because it is not PC to have these views.

 

Neither of those scriptures articulate a ban on women having the priesthood. 

[Gray]

Whatever the case, during this age of the fullness of time, there is no authoritative record where God has bestowed the keys, let alone revealed his will for women to receive the priesthood, and as such reason suggests, if not the Spirit also, that women are not permitted to hold the priesthood any more than children under the age of 12 and non-members. Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, I guess that depends entirely on whether or not you consider the Bible to be authoritative.