Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

If you read their "second discussion"  (and I don't think the description is by accident, it parallels the missionary plan designed to convert), there is an interview by Sister Okazaki which tellingly describes how we got to where we are.   She describes preparing a new manual for relief society, and getting it approved internally and then going over to the curriculum department where she is told that it is not approved because a committee has written a manual for RS.    Now since most men I know have mothers, sisters and wives, I cannot imagine how any of those involved in this project could have thought it okay to plan for the women without actually talking to them, but somehow they were and did.   And this wasn't GA's it was either paid or volunteer people in the headquarters department.   (Turned out it was the beginning of the president's series, started because Pres. Hinckley was concerned that around the world there were many LDS homes without many doctrinal books, and he thought it would be helpful to have a manual that they could access doctrine in all homes, which of course sounds like a great idea).  

 

 

However unintended as a slight, excluding women from critical input about how all the church programs should work not just denies the richness that women can bring, but also is bound to end up in hamhandness like the above.    Those who work for the church and those who volunteer for the church and those who lead in the church need to be thoughtful and fully inclusive to women's ideas and service and needs.   And they need to celebrate the full contributions of women, however they choose to demonstrate their faithfulness.   (Though it isn't like all the women of the church think alike either, so considering multiple and differing views of women is also mission critical.)

Share this post


Link to post

What does "approved internally" mean?  Clearly there was some confusion on who does what, and the curriculum group was out of the loop when she was working on the manual.

 

Hopefully a lesson was learned by all parties involved and a procedure was set up to avoid this in the future.  This happens in any corporate environment.

Share this post


Link to post

Why haven't the leaders responded to them that they've gone to the Lord? Though I'm pretty sure that won't be enough to get them to back off, but don't they at least deserve that? Women in this church are sometimes coddled like babies, but they apparently don't deserve that much respect?

I think the 6 discussion are compelling, things I had never thought of. Just because I don't want the PH and all that it entails me to do, doesn't mean some women might not like it. To them they feel called to it. Unlike the thousands out there that couldn't care less to hold it. Why can't it be a case by case basis? If this church can stop polygamy in this life in order for the church to become a state, why not allow women in the PH? Same with many of the things in the church that have changed, this church is an ongoing living organism where nothing is quite set in stone, that is what makes it so unique.

Article of Faith #5 might be applicable to women as well as men, but still it is God who does the callings and instructing us on our part in the process.

Kate is all about trying to stir things up among the members of the Chutch, rather than petitioning God to change things, and unless or until God decides he wants to change how he does things we men are supposed to be following the instructions he has given us.

And nobody, not even members of other churches, are supposed to be taking the honor of the priesthood unless God does the calling.

Share this post


Link to post

It's so common that anyone might use it to help their case.  Who's to say that Kate Kelly hasn't been inspired also. 

So it is OK for Kelly to say that the prophets haven’t been inspired, but not OK for me to say that Kelly hasn’t been inspired?    

Edited by Sleeper Cell

Share this post


Link to post

This would depend on whether the Prophet was actively seeking on the issue or just "continuing to hold a view and understanding that presumably most faithful Latter-day Saints -- including at least a few presidents of the Church -- have held for generations."

 

Where in LDS scripture or doctrine does it say that this issue depends on whether or not the Prophet is actively seeking on the issue?

 

I think i understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the teachings on the church on the issue of how revelation for the church is received.

Share this post


Link to post

Where in LDS scripture or doctrine does it say that this issue depends on whether or not the Prophet is actively seeking on the issue?

 

I think i understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the teachings on the church on the issue of how revelation for the church is received.

 

Except for the part where the Church was founded because, according to teachings of the Church, no one was listening or asking the right questions for more than a thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post

Um, isn't that kind of what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on? Also, the Doctrine and Covenants contain revelation prompted by various "random" members' questions and concerns.

 

 

 

Actually no, it's the opposite of how the Lord has taught He will give revelation for His church.

 

A person is allowed to get revelation for those whom he or she has a stewardship over.  A random member has no stewardship over the church, while the prophet specifically does.   The Lord is very specific on how revelation for the church is received, and how it's not received.

Share this post


Link to post

Where in LDS scripture or doctrine does it say that this issue depends on whether or not the Prophet is actively seeking on the issue?

 

I think i understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the teachings on the church on the issue of how revelation for the church is received.

Lest you get too confused by Seeking Understanding's rhetoric, be aware that he/she is mocking me for something I said on another thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Except for the part where the Church was founded because, according to teachings of the Church, no one was listening or asking the right questions for more than a thousand years.

 

That is not what the church teaches on how and why the gospel was restored when it was.  :)

Share this post


Link to post

That is not what the church teaches on how and why the gospel was restored when it was.   :)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm correct!

Share this post


Link to post

You are incorrect. The Church teaches that this is how revelation comes about. Asking the right questions and listening to the Holy Ghost. For reference see the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the First Vision.

Share this post


Link to post

You are incorrect. The Church teaches that this is how revelation comes about. Asking the right questions and listening to the Holy Ghost. For reference see the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the First Vision.

No individual can receive revelation for those they do not have stewardship over. In general, for revelation for my self, you are correct. If I wish to receive revelation for my self I do those things you outlined. But I cannot receive revelation for the church unless I have stewardship of the church given to me.

Share this post


Link to post

You are incorrect. The Church teaches that this is how revelation comes about. Asking the right questions and listening to the Holy Ghost. For reference see the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the First Vision.

Raharu, as others have stated, the president of the Church is the only one on earth authorized to receive revelation governing the whole Church.

 

To get a better understanding of this, please read Doctrine and Covenants 28.

 

Also, here is a lesson from the curriculum materials of the Church. It is from a Primary manual, but the concepts it teaches are true. I'm certain I could find other content that reflected the same teachings if I wanted to take the time.

Share this post


Link to post

You are incorrect. The Church teaches that this is how revelation comes about. Asking the right questions and listening to the Holy Ghost. For reference see the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the First Vision.

 

No one is talking about how someone receives revelation for themselves.  

 

What we are talking about is how revelation is received for the entire church.    D&C 28: 2-7 explains how this works.

 

"But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.

And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.

But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;

6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead."

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post

You are incorrect. The Church teaches that this is how revelation comes about. Asking the right questions and listening to the Holy Ghost. For reference see the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the First Vision.

You would be correct if you were asking the questions for yourself. For example, if you should take the job offer....or if you should move to Rhode Island or if you should marry so and so etc. But not for the entire church. The point is: OW has had their request answered: women do not have the priesthood now. What can assume that this is what god wants.

Share this post


Link to post

Glad we are all on the same page here.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Except for the part where the Church was founded because, according to teachings of the Church, no one was listening or asking the right questions for more than a thousand years.

 

Wasn’t the “First Vision” a response to Joseph’s question about which of the existing churches to join?  I seriously doubt that Joseph was the first person to ask this question “for more than a thousand years.”  
 
IIRC, prior to the First Vision, the possibility that the “true church” was not on the earth (and that the priesthood had to be  restored by heavenly messengers) never occurred to Joseph. 

Share this post


Link to post

Lest you get too confused by Seeking Understanding's rhetoric, be aware that he/she is mocking me for something I said on another thread.

And I apologize for the underhanded blow. Sorry if I crossed some line there. While it is probably bad form to wrest people's quotes that way, the sentiment still stands. How do we know when there has been divine revelation and when there is just a reflexive "we know by revelation" statement.

 

President Kimball said:

Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems

I think this is the ultimate goal behind many of those who support OW. To create an atmosphere similar to that that existed in the late 1970's when the Qof12 and FP desired the revelation and were reaching for it on their tip toes. Right now, I think we are in the realm of the 1940's where reflexively without thinking we respond that we already know the will of the Lord on this issue.

 

As to the topic of the thread and OW tactics. I am mostly undecided. I certainly think the discussion format is a large step up from protesting at conference, but I think the overall tone from OW is not productive to conversation.

Share this post


Link to post

You are incorrect. The Church teaches that this is how revelation comes about. Asking the right questions and listening to the Holy Ghost. For reference see the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the First Vision.

And persisting in asking the same question -- until the Lord gives you the answer you want to hear -- is how revelation is lost.  For reference, see the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.  

Share this post


Link to post

And persisting in asking the same question -- until the Lord gives you the answer you want to hear -- is how revelation is lost.  For reference, see the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.

 

 

18 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

“For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”

And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

 

From Edward Kimball's write up on the priesthood revelation:

 

 

President Kimball felt that his predecessors had sought the Lord’s will concerning the priesthood policy, and for whatever reason “the time had not come.”111 But Spencer had to ask anew. He wanted urgently “to find out firsthand what the Lord thought about it.” It was not enough just to wait until the Lord saw fit to take the initiative: the scripture admonished him to ask and to knock if he wanted to know for himself. He prayed, trying not to prejudge the answer: Should we maintain the long-standing policy, or has the time come for the change? He received no immediate answer to his prayers.112

 

In May 1975, President Kimball referred to his counselors various statements by early Church leaders about blacks and the priesthood and asked for their reactions.113 Wary of ways in which the question had been divisive during the McKay administration, he asked the Apostles to join him as colleagues in extended study and supplication.114 Francis M. Gibbons, secretary to the First Presidency, observed special focus on the issue in the year before the revelation.115 Ten years after the revelation, Dallin H. Oaks, president of BYU in 1978, recalled this time of inquiry: “[President Kimball] asked me what I thought were the reasons. He talked to dozens of people, maybe hundreds of people . . . about why, why do we have this.”116

 

 

The revelation finally came in 1978. Should President Kimball have stopped earlier when no revelation was forthcoming?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure I missed it, but where did Kelly state that she had made the problem a matter of earnest prayer and that it was revealed to her that she must petition the brethren until they submit to the will of the Lord ? She must be frustrated that the Brethren are so stiff-necked on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

 

From Edward Kimball's write up on the priesthood revelation:

 

 

 

 

The revelation finally came in 1978. Should President Kimball have stopped earlier when no revelation was forthcoming?

I think President Kimball understood that it was foregone there would be a change. It was just a question of when.

 

And it is consistent with Church doctrine that prayer is a matter of unifying one's own desires with God's. So, if President Kimball knew by virtue of the spiritual gifts to which a prophet is entitled that the revelation would be coming, and that it was consistent with God's will, it would not be inappropriate for him to persist in his petitions. Think of Christ's parable of the importunate widow.

Share this post


Link to post

Just FYI, her name is Kate Kelly.

I call her Kate because I think it's more friendly to call someone by their first, or Christian, name.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure I missed it, but where did Kelly state that she had made the problem a matter of earnest prayer and that it was revealed to her that she must petition the brethren until they submit to the will of the Lord ? She must be frustrated that the Brethren are so stiff-necked on the issue.

 

Well to your point, she has said that nothing less than giving the priesthood to women will suffice. Someone who believes in the priesthood of God (and I assume Sister Kelly does), would certainly not make such a statement unless she was confident it was the will of the Lord. I think that implies a revelation. If not, she is very reckless in throwing down such threats. 

 

Of course, either way she comes into direct conflict with Mormon doctrine, but what are you going to do. 

Share this post


Link to post

Well to your point, she has said that nothing less than giving the priesthood to women will suffice. Someone who believes in the priesthood of God (and I assume Sister Kelly does), would certainly not make such a statement unless she was confident it was the will of the Lord. I think that implies a revelation. If not, she is very reckless in throwing down such threats.

Of course, either way she comes into direct conflict with Mormon doctrine, but what are you going to do.

Tell her she is wrong and point out the error of her ways, in a nice way.

That's what I usually try to do for everyone.

Edited by Ahab

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...