Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Buckeye here. Yes, I've been "inactive" from this board for sometime, but mostly because I've been over active in church-work-family. Just a quick question. Dane Laverty began a website about a year ago entitled Agitating Faithfully. The purpose was to provide members an opportunity to publicly state their desire for women to hold the priesthood. Does anyone know what happened to the site? I seems to have been taken down.
thesometimesaint Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Don't know anything about the website, but the idea has floated around every now and then.
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Thanks. I'm sure there are many others. This one got some traction because it was widely publicized. Dane was intereviewed on Mormon Stories. Exponent II, T&S and other blogs ran articles. Kind of curious why its not still up.
Deborah Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I don't understand "agitating" for the church to change its policy, especially on something like this. When it is time for women to get the Priesthood the Lord will reveal it, otherwise it seems quite a pointless waste of time and energy.
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 I believe Dan Laverty took the term "agitating" from President Hinckley's 60 Minutes inteview. When asked why women don't have the priesthood, he gave several answers, including that "our women are not agitating for it" (loose quote). Dan's site was to allow women to agitate, albeit faithfully.As to when the change will occur, I think we'll see the same process as with blacks and the priesthood. God didn't send an angel with the good news. He waited until the Church saw the folly of the ban and when the brethren came to him with desires to change the policy, he confirmed to them the correctness of a repeal. God gives to men (and women) according to their righteous desires. The same will happen for the women when they finally desire the spiritual blessings that only come through priesthood service. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I don't understand "agitating" for the church to change its policy, especially on something like this. When it is time for women to get the Priesthood the Lord will reveal it, otherwise it seems quite a pointless waste of time and energy.There is a great number of men who would happily give up the responsibilities or share the load. Also many Churches still do allow women to serve in the role. This is by far not just a Mormon issue. The Lord has called women to lead armies, and given them the wonderful calling of motherhood and the primary responsibility to raise children up with proper respect of God. Many have said they get tired of people saying women are more righteous...but they are usually much more obedient and loving. This is my opinion by I stand by it with no apologies.
mercyngrace Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I don't understand "agitating" for the church to change its policy, especially on something like this. When it is time for women to get the Priesthood the Lord will reveal it, otherwise it seems quite a pointless waste of time and energy.I think it depends on how you define agitate.Didn't Emma agitate for the Word of Wisdom? She had strong feelings about tobacco and temperance and it was her comment about having to clean the flthy floors after meetings that prompted Joseph's inquiry and the subsequent revelation, wasn't it?Perhaps if she'd kept her complaints to herself, history would be different. Edited January 6, 2012 by mercyngrace
Duncan Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 http://www.patheos.com//Resources/Additional-Resources/Something-Else-I-Dont-Know-James-Faulconer-01-05-2012.htmlan article from Jim F. of BYU, great piece and scholar 1
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) There is a great number of men who would happily give up the responsibilities or share the load. Also many Churches still do allow women to serve in the role. This is by far not just a Mormon issue. The Lord has called women to lead armies, and given them the wonderful calling of motherhood and the primary responsibility to raise children up with proper respect of God. Many have said they get tired of people saying women are more righteous...but they are usually much more obedient and loving. This is my opinion by I stand by it with no apologies.To be clear, I'm not advocating for men to give up anything. There is work enough to do for all. My wife holding the priesthood would not diminish my priesthood. To the contrary, I would be strengthened as we together blessed, baptized, and ordained our children. The gospel is a long arc towards unity. I want the unity that comes with her hands set together with mine.As for the commonly-cited reasons to deny women the priesthood, neither of the two you mention hold any water. Priesthood would positively affect womanhood just as it positively affects fatherhood. The fact that women are mothers is a reason to give them the priesthood, not deny them. And women are not more righteous than men. Their natures are just as fallen and lost without Christ. Performing priesthood ordinances would bring them closer to Christ (and to their fellow men) than they are now. But even if women were more righteous (or inherently spiritual or however you want to phrase it), again, that would be a reason to give them the priesthood, not deny them. If we deny people priesthood because they are "too" spiritual, then Christ should have been turned down long ago. Edited January 6, 2012 by Buckeye 2
katherine the great Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I think it depends on how you define agitate.Didn't Emma agitate for the Word of Wisdom? She had strong feelings about tobacco and temperance and it was her comment about having to clean the flthy floors after meetings that prompted Joseph's inquiry and the subsequent revelation, wasn't it?Perhaps if she'd kept her complaints to herself, history would be different.I think it depends on how you define agitate.Didn't Emma agitate for the Word of Wisdom? She had strong feelings about tobacco and temperance and it was her comment about having to clean the flthy floors after meetings that prompted Joseph's inquiry and the subsequent revelation, wasn't it?Perhaps if she'd kept her complaints to herself, history would be different.I would "agitate" too if men were smoking and spitting all over my house! (as I suspect most women would.)
Calm Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I believe Dan Laverty took the term "agitating" from President Hinckley's 60 Minutes inteview. When asked why women don't have the priesthood, he gave several answers, including that "our women are not agitating for it" (loose quote). Dan's site was to allow women to agitate, albeit faithfully.As to when the change will occur, I think we'll see the same process as with blacks and the priesthood. God didn't send an angel with the good news. He waited until the Church saw the folly of the ban and when the brethren came to him with desires to change the policy, he confirmed to them the correctness of a repeal. God gives to men (and women) according to their righteous desires. The same will happen for the women when they finally desire the spiritual blessings that only come through priesthood service.So Dan sets up a website because women are not agitating for it, he's giving his encouragement, he's allowing women to do what he thinks is best for them by determining for them how they should go about agitating faithfully as soon as they desire the spiritual blessings he thinks they should desire.How thoughtful and generous and empowering of him. 1
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 I would "agitate" too if men were smoking and spitting all over my house! (as I suspect most women would.)Good point, though I think it was actually Sister Whitney's house that Joseph and Emma were living in. Still a very good ground to agitate. But that begs the question - why don't more women agitate for their daughters to have the spiritual blessings that come with priesthood service? Dirty floors are temporal frustrations. Spiritual blessings are eternal.
Nominee Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 As a woman, I do not feel I have been denied. I find Heavenly Father to be perfectly considerate of my needs. I believe the balance of responsibility between man and woman is what gives us our opportunities at unity. We are not meant to be independently capable of doing all things on our own. I understand why a man may want his wife to have this responsibility but I do not understand why a wife would want for it. After all, in a worthy relationship it is not lacking and why fix what isn't broken?
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 So Dan sets up a website because women are not agitating for it, he's giving his encouragement, he's allowing women to do what he thinks is best for them by determining for them how they should go about agitating faithfully as soon as they desire the spiritual blessings he thinks they should desire.How thoughtful and generous and empowering of him.I don't know Dan, but I have no reason to doubt his sincere intentions. Was it not right for whites to march and support the civil rights movement? It seems pretty clear to me that 100% of the general authorities who counseled together and then asked God for the racial priesthood ban to end were white. Why should it be any different for the gender-based ban? Moreover, as a father, I have an obligation to agitate for the spiritual welfare of my daughters, wife, sisters, mothers, and all the women in my life. 1
bluebell Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 If women recieved the priesthood, then childbirth would be the only thing that men and women did not share equally. That makes me uncomfortable, for some reason (that i can't really even describe). Childbirth is something that the female gender cannot share or delegate to the opposite gender-maybe that correlates somehow to men and priesthood.I really do believe that God gave women childbirth for a specific reason (and not as punishment for Eve's choice in the garden), and that he gave it to them alone as part of that reason. Though i have no reasons for it (no scriptures or words of the prophets), there is a part of me that leans towards the notion that God gave men the priesthood for specific reasons and that he gave it to them alone as part of those reasons as well.Don't ask me what those reasons might be, i'm not attempting to teach any doctrine or argue anyone into my way of seeing it, just sharing my thoughts on the topic.
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) As a woman, I do not feel I have been denied. I find Heavenly Father to be perfectly considerate of my needs. I believe the balance of responsibility between man and woman is what gives us our opportunities at unity. We are not meant to be independently capable of doing all things on our own. I understand why a man may want his wife to have this responsibility but I do not understand why a wife would want for it. After all, in a worthy relationship it is not lacking and why fix what isn't broken?But just because you don't want the priesthood, why deny it to those who do? As a man, I was not denied the priesthood just because my uncle didn't want it. Why should it be any different for my daughters? Edited January 6, 2012 by Buckeye
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) If women recieved the priesthood, then childbirth would be the only thing that men and women did not share equally. That makes me uncomfortable, for some reason (that i can't really even describe). Childbirth is something that the female gender cannot share or delegate to the opposite gender-maybe that correlates somehow to men and priesthood.I really do believe that God gave women childbirth for a specific reason (and not as punishment for Eve's choice in the garden), and that he gave it to them alone as part of that reason.Though i have no reasons for it (no scriptures or words of the prophets), there is a part of me that leans towards the notion that God gave men the priesthood for specific reasons and that he gave it to them alone as part of those reasons as well.Don't ask me what those reasons might be, i'm not attempting to teach any doctrine or argue anyone into my way of seeing it, just sharing my thoughts on the topic.Thank you bluebell. We may not agree, but I appreciate your willingness to admit you don't know of any scriptural doctine for the ban. Neither do I.The "motherhood" reason you rely on is often raised, but I just don't get it. Of course motherhood is not a punishment (though there is pain), but that is no reason to punish women by denying them spiritual blessings. And men do play a significant role in child birth is they so chose. I experienced each of the pregnancies with my wife. Not in the same way, but I suffered real pain at the miscarriages, I felt the children kicking when I lay next to my wife in bed, and I had a very special bond with them the moment they were born. I carried them from the doctor's arms to my wife to be nursed. Then I (alone!) held their hand as the nurse took them for their apgar tests and supported them in those first unnerving moments out of the womb. I have as much of an inate love and attachment to them as does my wife. I don't mean to sound angry, but I do get offended when people say mothers somehow love their children more than fathers. They don't. [And to be clear, I'm not suggesting you said that].Motherhood is not the only biological difference between the sexes. Men don't go through menopause or menstrationn. Women don't suffer the effects of high testosterone or hairy chests. But none of those differences is a rational basis to deny one gender from priesthood service. The differences between men and women will not disappear if women are given the priesthood. So why should it matter that "women have the babies" any more than "men have hairy chests"? Edited January 6, 2012 by Buckeye
Deborah Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I really do believe that God gave women childbirth for a specific reason (and not as punishment for Eve's choice in the garden), and that he gave it to them alone as part of that reason.I guess my feeling is that childbirth is a partnership with God in creating life, and therefore a form of having the Priesthood. Men of course make their contribution to the creation of life but it is the woman who literally lays her life on the line to bring forth new life. Can there be a greater responsibility?
Calm Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I don't know Dan, but I have no reason to doubt his sincere intentions. Was it not right for whites to march and support the civil rights movement? It seems pretty clear to me that 100% of the general authorities who counseled together and then asked God for the racial priesthood ban to end were white. Why should it be any different for the gender-based ban? Moreover, as a father, I have an obligation to agitate for the spiritual welfare of my daughters, wife, sisters, mothers, and all the women in my life.Support the movement sure....decide for your women what is best for their spiritual welfare rather than letting them do it, set it up and lead it....no.It seems pretty clear to me that 100% of the general authorities who counseled together and then asked God for the racial priesthood ban to end were white.There is a significant difference between another member of no authority pushing for other members to agitate for change and the seeking to receive revelation on how to lead the Church by the proper authorities. The latter have the responsibility of determining what are the standards and roles for all members of the faith. Other members of no authority shouldn't be going around telling other members they should be agitating for whatever, that they should feel cheated or second class, should not be defining others' emotions or desires in any way for them. If you think women deserve the priesthood, then treat them like adults and let them act on their own to receive it rather than assuming the leadership roles demonstrating yet again that women aren't smart enough, assertive enough, can't take care of themselves without the man out in front telling them what to do. Edited January 6, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Deborah Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 but that is no reason to punish women by denying them spiritual blessings.Why do you assume women are denied spiritual blessings because they don't have the Priesthood. I have never felt denied of spiritual blessings, and I have laid my hands on a crying infant's head and told him to rest peacefully when no one else was around to give a blessing. 1
Nominee Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 But just because you don't want the priesthood, why deny it to those who do? As a man, I was not denied the priesthood just because my uncle didn't want it. Why should it be any different for my daughters?I want what responsibility Heavenly Father sees fit to give me. I didn't say I didn't want it, I said that I do not feel denied. I am a single mother. I do not have the priesthood living in my home but my little family has never had to wait more than 10 minutes for a priesthood holder to arrive for us. I have the highest respect for the sacred responsibility to deliver that power when and where it is needed. And I strongly believe the need is supposed to be there. You are supposed to supply the priesthood to your wife and daughters ~ without complaint. They should not be without the blessings of priesthood service, you are right. You should be providing it. You and all the other priesthood holders on earth if the job cannot be done by you alone. As far as denying females who do want the priesthood, prayer would be in order because it is Heavenly Father who is making that decision. It seems pretty clear to me that 100% of the general authorities who counseled together and then asked God for the racial priesthood ban to end were white. Why should it be any different for the gender-based ban? I understand what you are saying here. With as much as this topic does get discussed, I believe with all my heart that the General Authorities HAVE counseled together and prayed and received an answer. But the answer is no. I have faith in that. I pray they never play the Joseph Smith to our Martin Harris. Personally, I believe the women will hold the priesthood again someday. But today is not that day, and I accept that answer.
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Support the movement sure....decide for your women what is best for their spiritual welfare rather than letting them do it, set it up and lead it....no.Sorry, you got it completely backwards again. I'm the one advocating for "letting women decide". You're the one advocating for denying them the decision. I would not force any women to take on the priesthood any more than I would force them to heaven. But I would let them choose it.
Nominee Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Why do you assume women are denied spiritual blessings because they don't have the Priesthood. I have never felt denied of spiritual blessings, and I have laid my hands on a crying infant's head and told him to rest peacefully when no one else was around to give a blessing.Exactly. I don't feel I have been denied spiritual blessings because I don't hold the Priesthood. I have always felt extremely blessed to live a life filled with worthy Priesthood holders surrounding me. I have never went without or felt that my prayers had less meaning in the ears of Heavenly Father. The Priesthood is for others not oneself or "amen to that power."
Buckeye Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Why do you assume women are denied spiritual blessings because they don't have the Priesthood. I have never felt denied of spiritual blessings, and I have laid my hands on a crying infant's head and told him to rest peacefully when no one else was around to give a blessing.Because the power of God is made manifest through the ordinances of the priesthood. I felt that power (and the bond it creates) when I was baptized by my Father. I felt it as young man blessing and passing the sacrament. I feel it as I perform ordiances with the youth in my ward on temple trips. My wife and daughters can experience some of that power, but only as others administer to them. They never get to experience it by performing the ordinances themselves. From my personal knowledge, I can tell you that there is a big difference between watching your child be baptized and baptizing them yourself. I desire my daughters to have all the spiritual blessings my sons have, and that requires priesthood.D/C 84:20-22:Therefore, in the aordinances thereof, the power of bgodliness is manifest.And without the ordinances thereof, and the aauthority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is bnot manifest unto men in the flesh;For without this no aman can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
Calm Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Sorry, you got it completely backwards again. I'm the one advocating for "letting women decide". You're the one advocating for denying them the decision. I would not force any women to take on the priesthood any more than I would force them to heaven. But I would let them choose it.No, you are not. You are saying that it's a good thing that a guy went out there and set up a website to lead women to do something and to encourage them to desire the priesthood since in your view they are being denied something. I'm the one who thinks if women feel denied, if women want to agitate for the Priesthood they are perfectly capable of doing it without having a man stepping up in front telling them how to go about it, setting up a website so all they have to do is sign their x's, holding their weak little hands because they are just too timid to do it for themselves.....because that is what the message is given when a man jumps up and starts posing as a leader for women to follow for their emancipation from man's dominion. How is this not a man yet again dictating what he thinks is best for women? How is this not yet again a man thinking that women can't achieve it on their own so he has to step in so that something is actually accomplished. 2
Recommended Posts