Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

Agree on the former, disagree on the latter

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

Share this post


Link to post

 

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-

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

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

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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 

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

"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****!

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

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

Share this post


Link to post

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-

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

What amazes me is the sheer idiocy of a lot of the statements coming from members of the Church in this thread.

 

There is little doubt that the Ordain Women movement has had a positive impact on the Church already. It also seems quite clear that not all of the leadership are on the same page with regards to how to respond to these issues. Someone asked (I won't point fingers) if we need scripture to back up policy. The answer to that is that while we don't need scripture to back up policy, most policies that aren't backed up by scripture have a way of changing.

 

Consider the changes in the last year or so that are due at least in part to the voice that these women have found:

 

1: A Woman gave a prayer in General Conference for the first time. This may seem like a small thing - but it isn't that small. A woman was allowed to pray for the entire church for the first time in the hundred and eighty years since it was organized. Now we know that there was a policy against this sort of thing (even if it wasn't written down). In fact at various times, women haven't been allowed to pray for their entire congregation. So this isn't something out of the blue but part of a progressive shift. And when we note that scripture isn't necessary to back up a policy, how did the Church respond to the issue of the ban on women praying in Sacrament Meeting? This was the substance of their response:

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer
prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.

Of course, this didn't actually spell out General Conference, did it. So it took from 1978 until 2013 for a woman to learn that she was capable of praying for the entire Church. What was this decision based on? The lack of a scriptural prohibition. Not a revelation that it could happen. Not some scriptural basis on which it should be allowed. But on the issue that there is no scriptural basis, a policy can be overturned without a need for special revelation.

 

2: We all saw the difference this last conference with the women who are part of the presidencies of the auxiliary groups being given much more prominent seating. I suspect that our local units should follow suit and occasionally (or regularly) invite the women leaders in the local units to sit on the stand as examples to the Young Women in the Church. Along with this, the Church has placed photographs of the women leaders of the Church now hang in the Conference Center along side their male counterparts for the first time (just this year).

 

3: The change to a General Women's meeting along with the shift to allow the women to conduct their own meetings (and expanding the ages invited to age 8 and up) shows a desire for increased parity between the men and women in the Church.

 

4: We have renewed the discussion from nearly a century ago that argued that women hold the priesthood, just not offices in the priesthood. This, of course, is a fascinating issue because it will not end simply with that now officially recognized position. If women really do hold the priesthood (even if they are not ordained to an office in the priesthood), then perhaps there is no reason to exclude the women leaders of the Church from PEC meetings.

 

In the long run, the women's issues that the Church faces (over gender equality or gender parity) are far worse than the issue of the priesthood and the blacks. Why? The priesthood ban certainly affected many members of the Church very negatively, and it was creating problems with the missionary work and spreading the gospel. But, women make up half of the Church. Much like the priesthood ban, there is a growing disconnect between our society which argues (quite effectively, even if our society is slow to implement it) that women are equal to men - are just as capable, just as smart, just as wise - and the Church, which while it may pay lip service to these kinds of ideals does not recognize women as being as capable of leadership as the men.

 

Even more of a problem is the gross difference between our youth - between the young women and the young men. In tying our young men's program to the Boy Scouts (something I think has become more of a liability than a benefit) and in changing the priesthood to the system we have now that the boys and men move through each office, we create these natural points for our young men to receive recognition as they move towards adulthood. Every couple of years we recognize them for advancements in the priesthood. Every quarter there is a boy scout court of honor where their achivements are recognized (the same is true even for the cub scouts). By comparison for our young women? Crickets. There is nothing. There is minimal recognition of their development towards adulthood.

 

This is a real problem. Particularly if we want to keep our young women active in the Church.

 

But it doesn't end here. We men have it easy in the Church. We are told to become like God - and as long as God is a male, and holds the priesthood, we can see ourselves doing just that. We can relate to this Male God. We, after all, share all of these characteristics with Him. Our rhetoric does very little to help the women in the Church do the same thing. As the boys gain the priesthood, as they get recognized, the girls get further and further from being like God. And when they go to an interview, it is always with a man. And then we can start getting into the policy issues that treat women and men substantially differently right? At least in some areas, the Church has made some shifts in the right direction. Allowing women to be sealed to more than one man was certainly helpful. Waiting until she's dead seems kind of pointless though, doesn't it? Especially since we already admit that we have to wait until some point in the future to make it all work out in any case.

 

The fascinating thing about these women and their movement is that they have finally found a way to have a voice and to make it heard. Does anyone really doubt that the general broadcast of the priesthood session of General Conference was more or less a way to block their request? Did anyone here catch the message? That it was really important for the young men and their fathers to be there at that session in person, and so they couldn't give up seats for a few of these women? Do you catch the irony there? That the vast majority of men and their sons who listen to that conference session do it outside of that Conference Center? Is my experience - because I live seventeen hundred miles away, not the real experience? Do we insist that there is something so special in this meeting that being seated in it makes the difference? Whoever was tasked with coming up with that explanation failed, very badly.

 

The point is, for all of you men who seem intent on berating these women. You don't have to deal with these issues. You aren't the ones that have questions because of the gender equality issues that are clearly there in the Church. So I suggest that most of you ought to be a whole lot more empathetic and kind to these women. The attitudes I am reading here will simply drive more women away. They don't help create a solution. These kinds of attitudes are the reason why a group like Ordain Women comes into existence - so that they can have a voice. And even then, here you are, trying not to solve the issues that make them feel that their efforts are necessary - all you are doing is trying to shout them down.

 

Ben McGuire

Share this post


Link to post

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-

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

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...