Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

 

Well there you have it ladies!

 

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

 

That is certain the case of consistency only for those who worships the politics of equality (not to be confused with me, but with the good folks of OW).

 

However, it is not at all the case for those of us who worship God.  To us, the reason women "can't have the priesthood" as you put it, is because God has yet to bestow the keys for doing so, and has yet to reveal it as his will to his authorized leaders.

 

How is it that you fail to see this obvious point even after repeated attempts clearly explaining it to you? I guess that, in the immortal words of the warden in Cool Hand Luke, "Some men you just can't reach." (See HERE) :)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Using reductio ad absurdum to make one's point is talking rationally.

 

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

Fine.

Now that we know the logical extreme and know what wouldn't be right (the extreme), lets use our heads to determine what could be right.

Or do we throw out all consideration because of what the logical extreme says.

Link to comment

The text is about God accepting people who come unto Him, not about them receiving ordinations from Him on demand.

 

It says all are alike unto God, regardless of race or gender or social circumstance. That's the basic blueprint for the moral principle of equality. 

Link to comment

It says they are alike unto Him as it pertains to whether He accepts them as they come unto Him.

 

That's your own personal reading of it. The text itself doesn't place limitations the idea of equality. 

Link to comment

Fine.

Now that we know the logical extreme and know what wouldn't be right (the extreme), lets use our heads to determine what could be right.

 

In doing so, if you have rejected the notion of infant children and household pets being eligible for priesthood ordination, you may well have disqualified yourself from using equality as an argument in determining "what could be right."

 

Reductio ad absurdum is all about consistency in thought and argument.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

That is certain the case of consistency only for those who worships the politics of equality (not to be confused with me, but with the good folks of OW).

 

However, it is not at all the case for those of us who worship God.  To us, the reason women "can't have the priesthood" as you put it, is because God has yet to bestow the keys for doing so, and has yet to reveal it as his will to his authorized leaders.

 

How is it that you fail to see this obvious point even after repeated attempts clearly explaining it to you? I guess that, in the immortal words of the warden in Cool Hand Luke, "Some men you just can't reach." (See HERE) :)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's not charitable or fair to characterize people who believe in equality as "worshiping" the politics of it, any more than it would be fair to claim you worship the politics of inequality, rather than God. Equality is, after all, a virtue taught in scripture, and a virtue many of us experience in our personal relationships with Deity 

Link to comment

In doing so, if you have rejected the notion of infant children and household pets being eligible for priesthood ordination, you may well have disqualified yourself from using equality as an argument in determining "what could be right."

 

Reduction ad absurdum is all about consistency in thought and argument.

 

This particular use of the rhetoric is irrelevant. OW have specifically advocated for equality in the church between men and women, not people and animals. 

Link to comment

"Some men you just can't reach."

You know Wade, you might actually have something good to say. But I can never hear it due to your incessant need to include with every post some condescending, belittling personal evaluation.

I'm done with you.

And don't you dare come back with your usual irony bull****!

Link to comment

The context is those who come unto God and His acceptance of them. The context is not those who are seeking position or stature.

 

Again, your personal reading. Not everyone shares your particular eisegesis. 

Link to comment

The context is those who come unto God and His acceptance of them. The context is not those who are seeking position or stature.

 

I've never thought of the priesthood as position or stature but rather a call to service and the authority to serve. I don't think it's fair to say the women who are calling for ordination want position and stature.

Link to comment

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

 

No, it depends upon whether I consider your private reading of the ancient bible to be authoritative and relevant to modern administration of God's church. 

 

In other words, it comes down to whether I look to you or God and his chosen prophets for authoritative direction about the priesthood in these latter days. 

 

It will come as no surprise to you that I prefer to look to the latter. You, of course, are free to rely on yourself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Why do they limit it to being between men and women? Isn't that arbitrary on their part?

 

I don't think so. Do you think it's arbitrary that organizations are typically run by men and women, but not pets or young children?

Link to comment

No, it depends upon whether I consider your private reading of the ancient bible to be authoritative and relevant to modern administration of God's church. 

 

In other words, it comes down to whether I look to you or God and his chosen prophets for authoritative direction about the priesthood in these latter days. 

 

It will come as no surprise to you that I prefer to look to the latter. You, of course, are free to rely on yourself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The scriptures mention a woman deacon, a position the church recognizes as one requiring priesthood authority. If you prefer to defer to tradition over scripture, you are free to do so. You can't defer to prophetic pronouncement, because there has been none in modern times on this issue

 

I don't need a private reading of the Bible to conclude that women filled priesthood roles - a simple literal take does the trick. In order to explain it away, a great deal of eisegesis and presentism is required

Edited by Gray
Link to comment

I've never thought of the priesthood as position or stature but rather a call to service and the authority to serve.

Great. Within the callings and assignments they now have in the Church, as designed by the Lord, there is plenty of authority and opportunity to serve.

 

 

I don't think it's fair to say the women who are calling for ordination want position and stature.

 

I don't think it's fair to say that none of them do.

 

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, ..." and so forth.

 

"Men" in this instance, should be taken to mean mankind, or men and women.

Link to comment

Great. Within the callings and assignments they now have in the Church, as designed by the Lord, there is plenty of authority and opportunity to serve.

 

I don't think it's fair to say that none of them do.

 

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, ..." and so forth.

 

"Men" in this instance, should be taken to mean mankind, or men and women.

 

I have no idea what their motivation is, but you seemed to be making a blanket statement about these women. I have no dog in this fight, as I really don't care whom the church allows to be ordained to the priesthood. I will say that I agree with President Packer that the channels of authority in the church flow in one direction, and it's not from the bottom up.

Link to comment

I don't think so. Do you think it's arbitrary that organizations are typically run by men and women, but not pets or young children?

It's not about what I think. It's about what they think.

 

How about non-Mormons? Why not give them the priesthood? Theoretically, isn't a non-Mormon as capable of running an organization as a Mormon?

Link to comment

Familiarity with the Long Tail principal may be warranted here.

Ah yes, a new innovation in marketing strategy straight out of the king of all innovation, Amazing Amazon! 

 

What will they think of next?

 

This used to be called the "General Store" principle, and then it evolved into the "Five and Dime" principle.  A later phase was the "Alice's Restaurant" principle and the "Truck Stop" principle.  ;)

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Fine.

Now that we know the logical extreme and know what wouldn't be right (the extreme), lets use our heads to determine what could be right.

Or do we throw out all consideration because of what the logical extreme says.

 

You are even yet mistaken. It isn't about "extremes," but about consistency. Equality knows no bounds. Where there is selective application of so-called "equality," there is unavoidable discrimination and thus inequality. One can't logically and consistently be for equality in unequal ways. 

 

This is, in part, why the politics of equality is asinine. Not only is it an impossible objective to achieve, but it is irrational given the natural and healthy inequalities that pervade our lives.

 

What will it take for you to get this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

You are even yet mistaken. It isn't about "extremes," but about consistency. Equality knows no bounds. Where there is selective application of so-called "equality," there is unavoidable discrimination and thus inequality. One can't logically and consistently be for equality in unequal ways. 

 

This is, in part, why the politics of equality is asinine. Not only is it an impossible objective to achieve, but it is irrational given the natural and healthy inequalities that pervade our lives.

 

What will it take for you to get this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Healthy inequalities that pervade our lives?" As someone who really likes you, I'm going to give you the opportunity to explain what you mean by this. It sounds somewhat Charles Murrayish to me but I know you better than that.

So tell us which equalities and why they are so healthy? And while you're at it, perhaps you can answer if you would feel the same way if you weren't on the plus side of so many of them?

Link to comment

It's not about what I think. It's about what they think.

 

How about non-Mormons? Why not give them the priesthood? Theoretically, isn't a non-Mormon as capable of running an organization as a Mormon?

Talk about a red-herring! Non-Mormons don't WANT our priesthood. Heck, we can't even convince 90% of our BELIEVING women to take the darn thing.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...