Agitating Faithfully

[mercyngrace]

In terms of taking logical steps towards a desired goal, I am wondering if Dane Laverty would be better advise to begin agitating faithfully for permitting women to wear pant suites and then pants to church, before attempting to agitate faithfully for women receiving the priesthood?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are pants and pant suits institutionally proscribed or are dresses and skirts a culturally imposed mandate?

[Buckeye]

As a woman, I feel blessed that with all I am responsible to do, I at least don't have to shoulder the responsibilities of the priesthood that the men do. But, I get to enjoy all of the blessings of the priesthood as I am served by the men of the priesthood. I can't even fathom why some women would want to hold the priesthood. There is so much for them to do as it is. Good heavens!

As a man, I feel blessed that with all I am responsible to do, I at least don't have to shoulder the responsibilities of cooking meals for sick members, talking care of children in the primary, or having charity. But I do get to enjoy all the blessings from the sisters who shoulder these responsibilities for me. I can't even fathom why some men would want to take on these responsibilities. There is so much for them to do as it is. Good heavens!

Oh wait, it turns out that these arbitrary divisions have fallen away. Now that I've experienced it, I love cooking, I love teaching in primary, and I love serving in all the ways the sisters do. I wonder why so few of them don't want to enjoy the blessings that come through priesthood service.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

I wonder why so few of them don't want to enjoy the blessings that come through priesthood service.

Because we feel we already enjoy those blessings.

[Pahoran]

Or the reinstatement of polygamy......

Another sarcastic drive-by. Would just one serious, respectful contribution to a discussion really be too much to ask?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

As a man, I feel blessed that with all I am responsible to do, I at least don't have to shoulder the responsibilities of cooking meals for sick members, talking care of children in the primary, or having charity. But I do get to enjoy all the blessings from the sisters who shoulder these responsibilities for me. I can't even fathom why some men would want to take on these responsibilities. There is so much for them to do as it is. Good heavens!

Oh wait, it turns out that these arbitrary divisions have fallen away. Now that I've experienced it, I love cooking, I love teaching in primary, and I love serving in all the ways the sisters do. I wonder why so few of them don't want to enjoy the blessings that come through priesthood service.

So -- if anyone doesn't see things your way, there must be something wrong with them?

Is that it, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

Another sarcastic drive-by. Would just one serious, respectful contribution to a discussion really be too much to ask?

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh, lighten up Gramps, it was a joke.

[Pahoran]

Oh, lighten up Gramps, it was a joke.

No kidding. Anyone can make "jokes" at the expense of others.

No doubt, if you really had the courage of your prejudices, your jokes would all start with "There were these two Jews...."

But Jews are rather harder targets than Mormons, aren't they?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

No kidding. Anyone can make "jokes" at the expense of others.

No doubt, if you really had the courage of your prejudices, your jokes would all start with "There were these two Jews...."

But Jews are rather harder targets than Mormons, aren't they?

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, since I am one of the "others" I guess I'm into self infliction.

But it appears that the ladies from the feminism thread have your eyes so bloodied and swollen that you are now just swinging wildly.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Senator

[selek1]

I've been sitting on this since this thread began.

Now its time to speak up.

The intrinsic and inescapable problem with the idea of agitating for the priesthood for women is the prideful attitude behind it.

"Agitating" is precisely the right word to describe the positions taken in this thread.

ag-i-tate /'aji,tÄt (verb)

1. Make (someone) troubled or nervous.

2. Campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action: "they agitated for a reversal".

Those who believe the Priesthood should be extended to women are certainly entitled to thier opinion- but this entire thread is to serves only proselyte for that opinion.

This is given away not only by the naked advocacy on display, but also by the implication that there is something morally or intellectually wrong with those who disagree with the OPs proposition.

This entire point of this thread (and the larger movement being advocated) is to make people troubled about the alleged disparity and is a campaign to arouse concern and sow discontent and incite dissension among the faithful.

Having taken note of this, one has to ask:

Can anyone cite an instance in the Scriptures wherein we are commanded to trouble our brethren over our personal policy preferences?

Can anyone cite in Scripture an instance where we are instructed to arouse concern and discontent among the faithful in pursuit of our own sensibilities?

Can anyone cite an example in Doctrine, in Scripture, or in the words and actions of the faithful where we are taught or commanded to demand changes of God or his Church?

To agitate- to trouble the faitful for what changes YOU see fit is naked hubris. To impune the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with you is unmitigated arrogance.

It is an attempt to elevate your own wisdom above that of those called and commissioned to administer the kingdom- and to do so in a fashion that undermines the peace and unity of the kingdom.

By contrast, every Scriptural and historical example I can think of indicates that we are to approach the Lord and his Church in humility and supplication.

supplicate \SUP-luh-kayt\

intransitive verb:

1. To make a humble and earnest petition; to pray humbly.

transitive verb:

1. To seek or ask for humbly and earnestly.

2. To make a humble petition to; to beseech.

In the 1978 Revelation regarding the Priesthood Ban, the Brethren did not approach the Lord and demand the change. They approached him as supplicants, ready and willing to accept his will- whatever that was.

Instead of troubling that the Lord to make changes as they saw fit, they asked in humility and submission.

And that is the crucial difference.

It is the contrast between the pride of demanding that the Church conform to your will and whim versus beseeching the Lord to know his will.

As so many others have said already, I have no problem with women holding the Priesthood- if and when the Lord decides to extend it to them.

I DO have a serious problem with a militant minority demanding that the Lord alter his policy to suit their wisdom- and implying that there's something wrong with folks who won't sign onto their agenda.

Edited January 10, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

Well, since I am one of the "others" I guess I'm into self infliction.

Really? What have you ever posted that should make any reader suppose that you identify with the Latter-day Saints in any meaningful way?

But it appears that the ladies from the feminism thread have your eyes so bloodied and swollen that you are now just swinging wildly.

Oh yes, they were doing so well. That must be why the Feminocracy whined about me until the mods banned me from the thread; they got tired of giving me such a pasting.

You just keep right on telling yourself that, Senator.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nominee]

I've been sitting on this since this thread began.

Now its time to speak up.

The intrinsic and inescapable problem with the idea of agitating for the priesthood for women is the prideful attitude behind it.

"Agitating" is precisely the right word to describe the positions taken in this thread.

ag-i-tate /'aji,tÄt (verb)

1. Make (someone) troubled or nervous.

2. Campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action: "they agitated for a reversal".

Those who believe the Priesthood should be extended to women are certainly entitled to thier opinion- but this entire thread is to serves only proselyte for that opinion.

This is given away not only by the naked advocacy on display, but also by the implication that there is something morally or intellectually wrong with those who disagree with the OPs proposition.

This entire point of this thread (and the larger movement being advocated) is to make people troubled about the alleged disparity and is a campaign to arouse concern and sow discontent and incite dissension among the faithful.

Having taken note of this, one has to ask:

Can anyone cite an instance in the Scriptures wherein we are commanded to trouble our brethren over our personal policy preferences?

Can anyone cite in Scripture an instance where we are instructed to arouse concern and discontent among the faithful in pursuit of our own sensibilities?

Can anyone cite an example in Doctrine, in Scripture, or in the words and actions of the faithful where we are taught or commanded to demand changes of God or his Church?

To agitate- to trouble the faitful for what changes YOU see fit is naked hubris. To impune the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with you is unmitigated arrogance.

It is an attempt to elevate your own wisdom above that of those called and commissioned to administer the kingdom- and to do so in a fashion that undermines the peace and unity of the kingdom.

By contrast, every Scriptural and historical example I can think of indicates that we are to approach the Lord and his Church in humility and supplication.

supplicate \SUP-luh-kayt\

intransitive verb:

1. To make a humble and earnest petition; to pray humbly.

transitive verb:

1. To seek or ask for humbly and earnestly.

2. To make a humble petition to; to beseech.

In the 1978 Revelation regarding the Priesthood Ban, the Brethren did not approach the Lord and demand the change. They approached him as supplicants, ready and willing to accept his will- whatever that was.

Instead of troubling that the Lord to make changes as they saw fit, they asked in humility and submission.

And that is the crucial difference.

It is the contrast between the pride of demanding that the Church conform to your will and whim versus beseeching the Lord to know his will.

As so many others have said already, I have no problem with women holding the Priesthood- if and when the Lord decides to extend it to them.

I DO have a serious problem with a militant minority demanding that the Lord alter his policy to suit their wisdom- and implying that there's something wrong with folks who won't sign onto their agenda.

I see the rep points are stacking on this post and I have added my own; Still, I want to say thank you "out loud." This is a great post and I much appreciate it.

[Pahoran]

I've been sitting on this since this thread began.

Now its time to speak up.

The intrinsic and inescapable problem with the idea of agitating for the priesthood for women is the prideful attitude behind it.

"Agitating" is precisely the right word to describe the positions taken in this thread.

ag-i-tate /'aji,tÄt (verb)

1. Make (someone) troubled or nervous.

2. Campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action: "they agitated for a reversal".

Those who believe the Priesthood should be extended to women are certainly entitled to thier opinion- but this entire thread is to serves only proselyte for that opinion.

This is given away not only by the naked advocacy on display, but also by the implication that there is something morally or intellectually wrong with those who disagree with the OPs proposition.

This entire point of this thread (and the larger movement being advocated) is to make people troubled about the alleged disparity and is a campaign to arouse concern and sow discontent and incite dissension among the faithful.

Having taken note of this, one has to ask:

Can anyone cite an instance in the Scriptures wherein we are commanded to trouble our brethren over our personal policy preferences?

Can anyone cite in Scripture an instance where we are instructed to arouse concern and discontent among the faithful in pursuit of our own sensibilities?

Can anyone cite an example in Doctrine, in Scripture, or in the words and actions of the faithful where we are taught or commanded to demand changes of God or his Church?

To agitate- to trouble the faitful for what changes YOU see fit is naked hubris. To impune the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with you is unmitigated arrogance.

It is an attempt to elevate your own wisdom above that of those called and commissioned to administer the kingdom- and to do so in a fashion that undermines the peace and unity of the kingdom.

By contrast, every Scriptural and historical example I can think of indicates that we are to approach the Lord and his Church in humility and supplication.

supplicate \SUP-luh-kayt\

intransitive verb:

1. To make a humble and earnest petition; to pray humbly.

transitive verb:

1. To seek or ask for humbly and earnestly.

2. To make a humble petition to; to beseech.

In the 1978 Revelation regarding the Priesthood Ban, the Brethren did not approach the Lord and demand the change. They approached him as supplicants, ready and willing to accept his will- whatever that was.

Instead of troubling that the Lord to make changes as they saw fit, they asked in humility and submission.

And that is the crucial difference.

It is the contrast between the pride of demanding that the Church conform to your will and whim versus beseeching the Lord to know his will.

As so many others have said already, I have no problem with women holding the Priesthood- if and when the Lord decides to extend it to them.

I DO have a serious problem with a militant minority demanding that the Lord alter his policy to suit their wisdom- and implying that there's something wrong with folks who won't sign onto their agenda.

At the risk of making a "No true Scotsman" type of statement: while there are Mormons with many opinions upon many subjects, I don't believe there are any faithful Latter-day Saints "agitating" for the Church to change any of its positions.

In support of that observation, I cite the notorious "Mormons for Marriage" website. It pays lip service to some standard of respect for the Church and its leaders, and does absolutely nothing to uphold such. Furthermore, the very title is dishonest. Since "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron, arguably the real "Mormons for marriage" are those Church members who support and defend actual marriage. Those who affiliate with that site imagine that they know better than the Lord's anointed servants; as such, they are on the high road to apostasy, and are well advanced on that road.

And I believe the same can be said about this issue as well. It is true that we have no revealed explanation for why men and not women hold the Priesthood; but there's nothing unusual about that. The Lord rarely offers explanations for why He requires things to be done a certain way. But it does appear to be the Lord's way. In ancient Israel, only male descendants of Aaron could be priests; but Israel was surrounded by cultures that had priestesses, so it wasn't as if the concept never occurred to them.

On the first page of this thread, Duncan linked to a Patheos article by a BYU professor discussing this issue. Some of the comments were enlightening. One comment went to considerable length agonising about what the writer, presumably a Church member of some sort, should do, given "the harm" that is caused by women not holding the Priesthood; he kept referencing "the harm" as though it was obvious what he was talking about, but in fact no "harm" was actually detailed. And indeed, it's not obvious to me that any "harm" arises at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

Oh yes, they were doing so well. That must be why the Feminocracy whined about me until the mods banned me from the thread; they got tired of giving me such a pasting.

You just keep right on telling yourself that, Senator.

Regards,

Pahoran

Are you saying you were a victim of the Feminocracy? Our power knows no bounds!

For my part though, i didn't say a word to any mod. Your banning might actually have been your own fault.

[selek1]

Are you saying you were a victim of the Feminocracy? Our power knows no bounds!

And yet you sport that ominous little UMW logo in your siggy.....

Hmmmmm........

[Pahoran]

Are you saying you were a victim of the Feminocracy? Our power knows no bounds!

For my part though, i didn't say a word to any mod. Your banning might actually have been your own fault.

Here's a suggestion: given that you already contrived to have the last word on that thread, how about we now discuss what is relevant to this thread, instead?

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek1]

Here's a suggestion: given that you already contrived to have the last word on that thread, how about we now discuss what is relevant to this thread, instead?

C'mon guys!

Nuetral corners.

Light banter is one thing, angry accusations are another.

What happened in the other thread is done- and was done (ultimately) by the moderators in their arcane and unfathomable wisdom, let's not rehash it here.

[Pahoran]

C'mon guys!

Nuetral corners.

Light banter is one thing, angry accusations are another.

What happened in the other thread is done- and was done (ultimately) by the moderators in their arcane and unfathomable wisdom, let's not rehash it here.

I'm not the one who brought it up, and I'm quite willing to let it go.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

And yet you sport that ominous little UMW logo in your siggy.....

Hmmmmm........

Exactly!

[Damien the Leper]

The phrase "agitating faithfully" to me is sort of an oxymoron. How do you rebell and remain loyal at the same time?

Dissent is the freedom to excercise conscience.

[selek1]

Dissent is the freedom to excercise conscience.

While this makes for a dandy (if somewhat insipid) bumper sticker, it is also utter nonsense.

dis-sent

verb (used without subject)

1. to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often followed by from ): Two of the justices dissented from the majority decision.

2. to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.

3. to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

By the actual definition, "dissent" is only one possible outcome of the freedom to excercise conscience.

While dissent's iconoclastic nature is almost universally touted (without foundation) as a virtue, there is absolutely no guarantee that said dissent is either rational or founded upon reason, logic, or fact.

All too often (especially in forums such as these), "dissent" is merely a code-word for the ever-so-well-reasoned sentiment that "you're not the boss of me".

More over, such empty sloganeering in no way answers the question of how one can rebel and remain loyal at the same time.

It distracts from a hard question with a self-satisfying platitude.

To actually answer the question, one must further examine the comparison between dissenting and rebelling:

To rebel is defined as:

re-bel

verb (used without subject)

1. to reject, resist, or rise in arms against one's government or ruler.

2. to resist or rise against some authority, control, or tradition.

3. to show or feel utter repugnance: His very soul rebelled at spanking the child

Of the definitions of "dissent" offered above, only only the third comes close to matching that of the act of rebellion.

3. to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

Even then, mere "disagreement" with the Church's doctrine or authority is not enough to meet the conditions of rebellion.

One can clearly disagree with (or dissent from) the Church's position vis-a-vis the Priesthood without being in rebellion.

It is when one rises to actively rejecting the Church's authority and agitating for a change that one rebels.

Rebellion and loyalty are mutually exclusive and mutally antagonistic concepts.

Engaging in one automatically precludes the other.

Private dissent or disagreement can be (and most often are) a private matter of conscience, rather than disloyalty.

When it rises to the level of resisting, rejecting, or rising against (publicly agitating against) the Church's official position and authority, on the other hand, it is a matter of pride and rebellion- and by definition, of apostacy.

Edited January 11, 2012 by selek1

[frankenstein]

when a group has contrived rules, the strictness of which is meerly the pride and jealously of man, those who rebel agiast that which is contrived yet generally accepted are being loyal to original purpose of what became contrived.

[Jeff K.]

when a group has contrived rules, the strictness of which is meerly the pride and jealously of man, those who rebel agiast that which is contrived yet generally accepted are being loyal to original purpose of what became contrived.

When a group contrives dissent, which is meerly the pride of jealous and angry people, those who do not agree with the contrived dissent are being loyal to the original purpose, while the dissenters are not.

Gee, it fits both ways doesn't it.

[Hestia]

Oh yes, they were doing so well. That must be why the Feminocracy whined about me until the mods banned me from the thread; they got tired of giving me such a pasting.

Really, Pahoran? Let's keep the personal rancor out of comments. Meanwhile this thread appears to have reached it's end.