Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

None of the verses you referenced banned women from priesthood. They do represent the long Christian tradition (with the exclusion of earliest incarnations of Christianity) of not including women in priesthood roles 

You're going in circles now with the insistence on finding a "ban" in scripture. D&C 107 is a scripture, and stands on its own with regards to the ancient pattern and manner therein revealed, without any refernce to it being a tradition of men.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think giving women access to all leadership roles in the church is one of them

Great.

How do you square that with Gods and Goddesses who have sex roles?

That is the only question here.

Share this post


Link to post

Offer a scriptural source that uses "equal" or "equality" in a sense other than those I've listed and that conveys that it means every saint is to have a priesthood office.

 

I can't, but I can offer general good principles taught in scripture that should lead us to be inclusive. I don't think we need to be micromanaged. Good principles are good principles. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think giving women access to all leadership roles in the church is one of them

 

To me, its not of value what you or I think in terms of Church governance, but what God thinks, as revealed through HIS chosen leaders.

 

You, of course, are free to make your own thinking paramount.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

You're going in circles now with the insistence on finding a "ban" in scripture. D&C 107 is a scripture, and stands on its own with regards to the ancient pattern and manner therein revealed, without any refernce to it being a tradition of men.

 

D&C 107, while using traditional gendered pronouns of its day, doesn't make any gendered pronouncements on who may or may not receive the priesthood. 

 

All scripture of course is filtered through human consciousness, human language, human traditions and human bias. 

Share this post


Link to post

Therefore the 12 apostles weren't priesthood holders but rather messenger boys.

False dichotomy. The 12 Apostles were both "priesthood holders" AND "messenger boys".

Does the parable of the talents teach "social justice"?

Share this post


Link to post

To me, its not of value what you or I think in terms of Church governance, but what God thinks, as revealed through HIS chosen leaders.

 

You, of course, are free to make your own thinking paramount.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't think its wise to elevate human opinion and tradition to being representative of the actual mind of God. 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

False dichotomy. The 12 Apostles were both "priesthood holders" AND "messenger boys".

Does the parable of the talents teach "social justice"?

Great. Then Phoebe was just a servant AND a priesthood holder

 

"Does the parable of the talents teach "social justice"?"

 

In a way, yes. The master rewards servants not based on gender or race, but based on their own efforts

Share this post


Link to post

While titles and descriptors can have varied meaning, context is important. Obviously,. As such, If there weren't ample references in scriptures, both ancient and modern, where apostles were clearly ordained and denoted as offices of the priesthood, as differentiated from, at best, an office of auxilary organization within the Church, you may have a point. There are, and so you don't. 

 

But, that won't likely prevent you from continued desperate grasping. You have an agenda that needs propping up with even the most tissuey correlations. ;)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you are implying that a relief society president is set apart as an assistant to the bishop, which could be seen in another context to be an ordination to a deaconate

Share this post


Link to post

I can't, but I can offer general good principles taught in scripture that should lead us to be inclusive.

And I can offer general good principles taught in scripture that should lead us to be exclusive.

So, now what?

Share this post


Link to post

Great. Then Phoebe was just a servant AND a priesthood holder

Nope, as has already been addressed.

 

"Does the parable of the talents teach "social justice"?"

 

In a way, yes. The master rewards servants not based on gender or race, but based on their own efforts

And that is NOT "social justice" as currently being preached by progressives. So, you get a big fat F! Edited by Vance

Share this post


Link to post

mfbukowski writes:

I wish it could be made better, but can you think of a way we keep what makes Mormonism, Mormonism, without defining sex differences away? Seriously- I think this is one of the problems that those of a theological bent in the church need to face and issues of incredible importance, upon which we need to dialogue. At the moment, the only answer I see is the status quo.


Sure. Giving women the priesthood would not define away sex differences.

It is that simple.

There was a time when almost none of the men in the Church were ordained to the priesthood (and when they were ordained, they were ordained to a single office, not to all of the offices). That changed with the introduction of the Endowment - when to get endowed, you had to be ordained at least an Elder (for the men) and so between 80 and 90 percent of the eligible men in the Church were rapidly ordained. But even there, it wasn't so gender driven as it is now. We had women who gave blessings. It was widely recognized that women held the priesthood. All it takes is a simple comparison of two separate statements to understand that a huge shift occurred in LDS thought - and it was a shift driven by the women. Here is Brigham Young in a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle in 1869:

"Why do you [the women of the church] not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders." (JoD 13:155)"

Here is Joseph Fielding Smith in 1946:

"While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted."

The contrast should be obvious. My main issue is that this hasn't always been this sort of gender driven distinction. It became that. And if part of the result of this discourse is a removal of that gender driven distinction, I think that we end up in a much better place.

Making men more sensitive to the issue is of course important, but the bottom line is that we will still be telling the sisters that they cannot have the priesthood in a more sensitive way.



But we aren't saying this. We have already gone back to that earlier language and suggested that women do hold the priesthood - they just aren't ordained to offices in that priesthood. Let me provide you with a few sources ok?

In 1880, John Taylor addressed the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had ordained women in the organization of the Relief Society:
some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.


And then, 1888, President Franklin D. Richards said:

I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.
 
Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.


In this case, the suggestion that was running in the church - particularly in the late 1800s, was that the Endowment ceremony extended priesthood to both women and men (although women were not ordained to a specific priesthood office). Then President of the Relief Society, Eliza R. Snow said in 1884:
Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with almighty power.


Recognizing that women could be endowed without being married, this position was modified just a bit by Elder Talmage in 1912:
It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women…taking the endowment…are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood. Nevertheless there is no grade, rank, or phase of the temple endowment to which women are not eligible on an equality with men.


He added the notion here that being endowed gave a woman the shared priesthood of her future husband (if she was not married at the time). So it became more about the temple (in some ways) than it was about the husband. Part of this was to explain how women could perform ordinances and participate in the way they do in the temple without some sort of priesthood (and the answer was that they had some sort of priesthood).

There is a lot more that has been said about this topic. But, most interestingly, it resurfaced last year in a BYU Devotional by Elder Ballard (last August):

When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.

And this is what was quoted in the most recent General Conference by Elder Oaks:

In his insightful talk at BYU Education Week last summer, Elder M. Russell Ballard gave these teachings:

 

“Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. …

 

“When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.

So nowhere in any of this is your notion that women cannot have the priesthood - or your notion of some sort of ordained gender gap related to the priesthood. So I see your response as part of the problem. This desire to tell women that they cannot have the priesthood (as you so eloquently put it), is simply wrong - even when it is put sensitively. We have a history of recognizing that they have it, and a history of suppressing any visible way of using it.

Does Heavenly Mother have the Priesthood?  Perhaps it is time to find our more about that.  Perhaps the answer to the issue is to have a firm statement on Heavenly Mother from the First Presidency.  But there is a reason, I think God has decided not to teach more about that.  I don't see an answer.

According to our General Authorities, our Heavenly shares the same priesthood as our Heavenly Father.

 

So what basis do you see in the theology of the Godhead which would allow women to have the Priesthood?

 

I think I provided it. Don't you?

 

That's what I am saying, yes.  PEC serves no real purpose anymore- I have been attending both meetings for probably 25 years in many wards and I don't think I recall a time in which there was ANY difference in the topics discussed, the level of confidentiality, etc between the two meetings.  The only difference is that the sisters are not in one meeting and are in the other.  Let them come to both.  But frankly I would love to have permission to miss half those meetings.  I don't understand why women would want to come, but if they do, let them come.  It would make running the ward easier to not have to repeat "what happened last week" and move the work forward faster, in my opinion, if the sisters were also at all meetings.

Right. And there are other similar circumstances, wouldn't you agree? Does anyone seriously consider the Sunday School President to be one of the top leadership positions in a unit anymore, and necessarily a priesthood calling? Good reviews of our policies are helpful, and if done with an eye towards the gender gap, could do a great deal. I think that making these changes would have a very positive affect.

 

But, I think we need to make real changes, and not simply declare that equality is impossible, and so on.

 

Ben M.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think I'm desperate. I just think there is clear scriptural precedent for inclusion. If you need to explain away the scriptures because the idea of inclusion bothers you so much, I guess that's your right, but your standards aren't applied evenly. 

 

But, the issue isn't your seemingly overly simplistic notion of inclusion. No one here is disputing that male and female members alike are included in the body of Christ.

 

What is at issue is inclusion within the priesthood governance of the Church. Your chosen standard (the scriptures) are being applied the same. It is just that in terms of preponderance of evidence, your position rests on a tenuously vague passage that lends itself contextually better to different interpretation, as opposed to my wealth of context-rich passages that clearly and unmistakably support my position, thereby rendering your position most definitely desperate.  

 

But, you will see it however you need to see it. Confirmation bias demands it of you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post

jwhitlock writes:

FWIW, I acknowledge that there are women's issues that need to be addressed in the church. While it can be claimed that OW has moved the discussion along on women's issues, it can also be claimed that they have also hindered progress with their demands and methodology. I compare the Genesis group before 1978 to OW now and see a world of difference between the two. I've expressed some of my concerns about OW on this thread. I think they're valid concerns. But it needs to be remembered that valid concerns about a group need to be expressed when that group publicly agitates against the church as OW has done.

 

I don't believe for a minute that ignoring them or not questioning what they do is a good thing. Their demands and agenda need to stand up under scrutiny, just like the church has had to do.

The flip side of the coin is that with their high visibility (and media campaigns), those involved in the OW movement have seen both negative and positive responses. You see, for them, this is huge even if the responses are mostly negative. Why? They are being heard (even if they are not directly responded to). There is an awareness of their voice by the Church. And this means that they have a voice that they haven't had before. And while there may be an attempt to avoid responding to them directly, yet, all the same, changes continue to happen. And some of these changes seem clearly directed at them and their complaints (like, for example, the general broadcast of the Priesthood sessions of conference). So I don't think they have hindered progress at all. And I don't think that they see the response to their efforts as hindering their objectives.

 

Or maybe it really is just that the influence of some apostles has increased and the influence of others has decreased, and that is allowing these kinds of changes to pass a sustaining vote of the brethren ...

 

Do you really see change slowing down or going in the opposite direction because of OW?

 

Ben M.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think its wise to elevate human opinion and tradition to being representative of the actual mind of God. 

 

There is unintended irony in what you just said (you are presuming to know the mind of God well enough to know if certain human opinions and traditions are representative or not), but again, my concern isn't with what you or I may think is wise, but I prefer instead to look to God and his chosen leaders for direction.

 

Unlike you, I have no intent of dictating to God how or what he may reveal of his mind to us humans, but will humbly accept and respect what HE chooses for me.

 

You, of course, are free to rule HIM out and rely on yourself instead.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and the term "apostle" just means one who is sent away. Therefore the 12 apostles weren't priesthood holders but rather messenger boys. 

 

What's good for the goose is, after all, good for the gander. 

 

There is record of Christ laying his hands upon the head of the original 12 apostles and ordaining them.    There is also record of the 12 ordaining others to the priesthood throughout the early church.

 

Is there any record of this occurring with Phoebe or evidence of her exercising priesthood authority?  And as has already been stated, there are no original bible manuscripts, so we are at the whim of translations, which were made after the death of the apostles and not inspired.

Share this post


Link to post

Wade writes:

But, such requests for equality ought to be dismissed because they are inherently asinine. That is my point. Rather, what should be requested is God's will.

 

Then that is what you should give as your argument. Because the rest of what you say is generally completely irrelevant in every way.

 

But for the record, I disagree with this point. That is, I am convinced that requests for equality fundamentally represent God's will.

 

Ben M.

Share this post


Link to post

Wade writes:

 

 

 

Then that is what you should give as your argument. Because the rest of what you say is generally completely irrelevant in every way.

 

But for the record, I disagree with this point. That is, I am convinced that requests for equality fundamentally represent God's will.

 

Ben M.

 

How so? (I ask because I am quite confident I can demonstrate otherwise, but I respect your opinion and am open to hearing and perhaps rationally challenging what you may say.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post

There is unintended irony in what you just said (you are presuming to know the mind of God well enough to know if certain human opinions and traditions are representative or not), but again, my concern isn't with what you or I may think is wise, but I prefer instead to look to God and his chosen leaders for direction.

 

Unlike you, I have no intent of dictating to God how or what he may reveal of his mind to us humans, but will humbly accept and respect what HE chooses for me.

 

You, of course, are free to rule HIM out and rely on yourself instead.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So there is irony in Gray "presuming to know the mind of God well enough to know if certain human opinions and traditions are representative or not" but no irony in you "presuming to know the mind of God well enough to know" that God has not revealed further light to Gray or any of his other children, but instead pronouncing that they have "rule[d] HIM out" and are relying on themselves instead. Just trying to figure out how this irony thing works.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post

I can't, but I can offer general good principles taught in scripture that should lead us to be inclusive. I don't think we need to be micromanaged. Good principles are good principles. 

OK. Yet there is no valid principle supporting your position in scripture (you can’t use the Jew/Gentile context in 2 Nephi 26:33, which context follows in the New Testament as well), and there is no reference specifically banning in your position in scripture, and so you conclude that your position is consistent with scripture and is a general good principle? Oh-kay….

Share this post


Link to post

If I were to develop written teaching materials in order to sway my co-religionists to use their joint efforts to compel 50 E No Temple to my way of thinking, would I or should I be subject to Church Discipline?

 

At what point does disagreement with doctrines or policies become apostasy?

Edited by USU78

Share this post


Link to post

D&C 107, while using traditional gendered pronouns of its day, doesn't make any gendered pronouncements on who may or may not receive the priesthood. 

It says what the long-standing divine pattern is, and who receives it. I listed the specific verses.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm afraid there is a large contingent of Catholics who think women should be ordained.  They also know that it is not going to happen.  I believe the true is same of the LDS Church.  The wise church members understand that priesthood ordination is a male only endeavor.  Southern Baptists understand that ministers should only be men as well.

 

The pro-women ordination movement and the pro-gay movements all come from the same source.  They go hand-in-hand.  

I am sure that there are a large contingent. But they have very little influence because the catholic church and the devout do play hardball with them. But among many of the lds there is this concern of not offending anyone. If one is critical of OW, suddenly one is said to be condemning them. People seem to walk on egg shells. And I believe that this can be dangerous. If the lds members do a tip toe through the tulips on issues such as on ordaining women and SSM etc, the lds will find themselves in a not very good situation. We can not be concerned about causing offense in the age of victimization. 

Share this post


Link to post

So there is irony in Gray "presuming to know the mind of God well enough to know if certain human opinions and traditions are representative or not" but no irony in you "presuming to know the mind of God well enough to know" that God has not revealed further light to Gray or any of his other children, but instead pronouncing that they have "rule[d] HIM out" and are relying on themselves instead. Just trying to figure out how this irony thing works.

 

You evidently have a long way to go in learning about irony--on several levels. There is no comparative irony between what Gray said about the mind of God and what I said about the same because I didn't preference my remarks by suggesting there isn't a way for or an extent to which humans may reasonably know the mind and will of God.

 

Also, there is no apt comparison between what Gray said about God's mind, and what I said about Gray's mind--hopefully you understand the difference.

 

There were other problems with you flawed comparisons, but this should suffice for now.

 

Good luck in your continued irony education.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post

jwhitlock writes:

 

 

The flip side of the coin is that with their high visibility (and media campaigns), those involved in the OW movement have seen both negative and positive responses. You see, for them, this is huge even if the responses are mostly negative. Why? They are being heard (even if they are not directly responded to). There is an awareness of their voice by the Church. And this means that they have a voice that they haven't had before. And while there may be an attempt to avoid responding to them directly, yet, all the same, changes continue to happen. And some of these changes seem clearly directed at them and their complaints (like, for example, the general broadcast of the Priesthood sessions of conference). So I don't think they have hindered progress at all. And I don't think that they see the response to their efforts as hindering their objectives.

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if the provocateurs in these discussions have not employed the tactic of "ask for a mile, in hopes of getting an inch" sort of thing?  You know, like Doctors do with their medical billing to insurance companies.

 

But if you don't ask for anything, you'll likely not receive anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...