Watershed Moment in General Conference?

[consiglieri]

Consig, don't you sometimes get ideas, inspiration, revelation for others that you share with them? Isn't it then up to that person to make the decision whether what you said is true for them or not?

Hah!

Very clever of you, my dear Emeliza.

Only on rare, and extremely special occasions (and for extremely special people, I might add), has such been the case in my life.

And even then, I am quite aware I am overstepping the bounds prescribed by Church policy and procedure.

Which is what makes it so bodacious.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consig, did you read what I had posted earlier...? Some women already have a type of priesthood...

If that is so, it should make full equality of women in the priesthood that much shorter a trip to the candy shop.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William Schryver]

What an interesting thread. In it we come to see how radically different one church can be viewed, depending on the spiritual perspective of the observer. We also can see how one who has apparently lived his church experience outside its leadership councils can be virtually ignorant of what goes on in those councils. For those who have been involved in the council-oriented leadership unique to Mormonism, Elder Cook's remarks in his general conference address constituted nothing extraordinary. He was merely describing "business as usual."

At any rate, I'm only posting in reply to yet another in a long chain of cynically crafted attacks on my person, after which I shall revert to lurk mode.

consiglieri [speaking of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park

[Nathair/|\]

What an interesting thread. In it we come to see how radically different one church can be viewed, depending on the spiritual perspective of the observer. We also can see how one who has apparently lived his church experience outside its leadership councils can be virtually ignorant of what goes on in those councils. For those who have been involved in the council-oriented leadership unique to Mormonism, Elder Cook's remarks in his general conference address constituted nothing extraordinary. He was merely describing "business as usual."

At any rate, I'm only posting in reply to yet another in a long chain of cynically crafted attacks on my person, after which I shall revert to lurk mode.

consiglieri [speaking of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park

[bookofmormontruth]

What an interesting thread. In it we come to see how radically different one church can be viewed, depending on the spiritual perspective of the observer. We also can see how one who has apparently lived his church experience outside its leadership councils can be virtually ignorant of what goes on in those councils. For those who have been involved in the council-oriented leadership unique to Mormonism, Elder Cook's remarks in his general conference address constituted nothing extraordinary. He was merely describing "business as usual."

At any rate, I'm only posting in reply to yet another in a long chain of cynically crafted attacks on my person, after which I shall revert to lurk mode.

consiglieri [speaking of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park

[consiglieri]

In any case, I encourage all who are so motivated to search out the things I have written over the years--regardless of the venue.

I abjure you in the name of all that is holy to resist the temptation to seek out Will's words elsewhere.

It is a fate not to be visited on the TBMest of TBMs.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[frankenstein]

In any case, I encourage all who are so motivated to search out the things I have written over the years--regardless of the venue. ... The apostates in the GSTP hold a special and extremely deeply rooted hatred for me,

I for one have done this, and there is consistency, a talk from April 1984 General Conference sums up the consistency. I would say it is a consistency found in the Church and this board.

[BCSpace]

First, it completely undermined the tropes we have heard for years about revelation being appropriate solely for those people over whom one has stewardship. Under this view, only the bishop (or possibly elder's quorum president) would have authority to receive revelation for reactivating priesthood holders. The relief society president was completely out of line in the revelation she received under this view and should have been reprimanded accordingly.

Nothing was undermined:

1) She's part of the the ward council so reactivation of any and all membership is part of her jurisdiction.

2) The Bishop implemented the plan because he thought it was good which is still his jurisdiction/decision.

What happened here is merely analogous with what happens between husband and wife.

I think it possible that this talk will be looked back on in future years as a turning point in women being allowed to hold the priesthood.

Any thoughts?

I see no evidence that the priesthood will ever be confered upon women.

[consiglieri]

I for one have done this, and there is consistency, a talk from April 1984 General Conference sums up the consistency. I would say it is a consistency found in the Church and this board.

A touch, a touch, I do confess.

*cough. cough.*

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And this, I think, is at the heart of what I perceive to be a shift in stewardship as defined in the Church.

By creating ward and stake councils, and allowing sisters to act as counselors to the bishop or stake president, the Church has effectively broadened authority of sisters over members they hitherto were denied.

These are my thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No such thing was decided, or will happen.

[mfbukowski]

We are now seeing a trend away from that patriarchal hegemony, as women have been allowed on councils that make decisions over priesthood holders, thus extending the stewardship of at least some women over the priesthood.

This is quite different from what was had before Correlation, though.

Women have gone from being relatively independent of the priesthood, to being completely subject to the priesthood, to having authority and stewardship by way of their inclusion on councils over those who hold the priesthood.

Just a staggering bit of convoluted reasoning. Phenomenal! Just the sentence "completely subject to the priesthood" is phenomenal in itself. We already know how "subject to the priesthood" our wives are.

Women are on councils which make decisions for the church, therefore they have "authority and stewardship over those who hold the priesthood."

That's like saying a business consultant has "authority and stewardship" over the workers in the business with which he consults.

Heavy.

[Mansquatch]

After some reflection, I think a watershed moment may have been achieved in the Saturday morning session of general conference in Elder Cook's talk.

He spoke of a relief society president who received revelation for the priesthood holders in the ward and shared it with the bishop who ran with it and brought so many of the priesthood holders back into activity.

This was remarkable.

First, it completely undermined the tropes we have heard for years about revelation being appropriate solely for those people over whom one has stewardship. Under this view, only the bishop (or possibly elder's quorum president) would have authority to receive revelation for reactivating priesthood holders. The relief society president was completely out of line in the revelation she received under this view and should have been reprimanded accordingly.

But Elder Cook not only sanctioned her revelation, but canonized it in a general conference talk.

I think it possible that this talk will be looked back on in future years as a turning point in women being allowed to hold the priesthood.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You seem to be assuming that no one can even make suggestions to leaders, within the church, which the leaders can then also receive confirmation of.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You seem to be assuming that no one can even make suggestions to leaders, within the church, which the leaders can then also receive confirmation of.

You would think so...he knows better.

[Scott Lloyd]

I hope you didn't destroy too many brain cells sniffing so hard.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I take it you have no intelligent rebuttal then.

[frankenstein]

A touch, a touch, I do confess.

*cough. cough.*

all to a degree, some more so than others.

It is refreshing that many are consistent because I will almost always know what is worth my time and what is not.

-----------------------

Considering the opinions that have been given, particularly about "councils" do you still think it was a "watershed" moment? Do you think that women where prohibited from offering suggestions?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I take it you have no intelligent rebuttal then.

He is always intelligent, just not doctrinal. I have learned much from him over the years.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought it might be beneficial to present here some excerpts from Elder Ballard's book Counseling with Our Councils. (This is taken from the Deseret Book website. The book is available from there as well as Amazon and other outlets, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, one can get it from the Church Distribution Center, thus avoiding the retail markup.)

See in particular the first excerpt, which is particularly germane to the topic of this thread.

Excerpts from Counseling with Our Councils: Learning to Minister Together in the Church and in the Family

One of my main purposes in writing this book is to encourage priesthood leaders to invite the sisters to more fully participate in developing solutions to the difficult problems confronting members of the Church.

Too often family councils are held only when the parents feel there are problems

[Scott Lloyd]

He is always intelligent, just not doctrinal. I have learned much from him over the years.

I didn't say he wasn't intelligent.

What I did do is observe that he lobbed a one-line insult rather than proffer a reasoned reply.

[LDS Guy 1986]

He is always intelligent, just not doctrinal. I have learned much from him over the years.

I agree with you Pa Pa, while consiglieri is rarely concerned about the Doctrine of the Church in most cases, he does present many honest and important questions to this forum (as well as his semi regular loaded question so he can enjoy hours of argument among th forum members).

I appreciate his honest and his complete lack of hostility (though is sarcasm and antics are of the highest quality) with the members of the forum. He is a true gentleman (some times) in a sea of ruffians, IMO.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I didn't say he wasn't intelligent.

What I did do is observe that he lobbed a one-line insult rather than proffer a reasoned reply.

But that is what makes him so beloved, you just have to understand how he ticks.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that is what makes him so beloved, you just have to understand how he ticks.

I believe I understand it well enough. I just don't find it as loveable as you apparently do.

On an unrelated note, are you aware your use of the Church's official logo as your avatar may amount to copyright or trademark infringement? See the new Handbook 2: Administering the Church under "Selected Church Policies," "21.1.10 Church Name and Logotype."

[mercyngrace]

How wonderfully percipient of you, MnG!

Especially ironic, given that by the end of the play, Kate realizes her proper role as a wife is to have her hand under the foot of her husband.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Such duty as the subject owes the prince, Even such a woman oweth to her husband.

[consiglieri]

I believe I understand it well enough. I just don't find it as loveable as you apparently do.

On an unrelated note, are you aware your use of the Church's official logo as your avatar may amount to copyright or trademark infringement? See the new Handbook 2: Administering the Church under "Selected Church Policies," "21.1.10 Church Name and Logotype."

Take up for Consiglieri and a lawsuit is in the offing.

Cool.

And thanks to those of you who understand me well enough to know what makes me tick while not getting too ticked off at my antics.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[frankenstein]

I believe I understand it well enough. I just don't find it as loveable as you apparently do.

On an unrelated note, are you aware your use of the Church's official logo as your avatar may amount to copyright or trademark infringement? See the new Handbook 2: Administering the Church under "Selected Church Policies," "21.1.10 Church Name and Logotype."

section 107

[Scott Lloyd]

Take up for Consiglieri and a lawsuit is in the offing.

Cool.

Nobody's threatening litigation here. It's not my job to enforce the Church's intellectual property rights. I just ran across that section the other day and wondered if LDS Guy was aware of Church policy on the matter. Just thought I'd mention it in case nobody else did.