happy Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 An article came out recently in the SLC tribune concerning the other topic I brought up, women and the priesthood.http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54704413-80/church-equality-female-general.html.cspThe concern I have is this new habit of bullying the Church into one's views using emotional rhetoric to shame the Church. For example, there is a lot of talk about how the Church should accept women and the Priesthood because of so much "pain" women in the Church feel (even though a separate pole showed only 10% of LDS women interviewed wanted the priesthood...) Some of this wording sounds extremely close to the wording used to try to bully the Church into accepting gays.Some cite blacks and the Priesthood, which is flawed considering it was a policy ban, and I do not believe there was any written scripture, revelation, or doctrine that required such a ban. Now that people want doctrinal changes, there seems to be this new strategy of shaming, and I am concerned if the Church gives in, two things become apparent.1. The Church is not, in fact, true as social pressure changes core doctrine and our Prophet would have lost control.2. The Church would then be easy pray to additional changes through social pressures and shaming.As mentioned by others, the RLDS/CC did not do well by changing to social whims. They seem to be devolving into obscurity.
Libs Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Sounds like good changes, to me. Where is the "bullying", in this? Asking for reasonable change is not bullying, that I can see. Edited August 17, 2012 by Libs 3
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Libs:Demanding unreasonable change is bullying. 2
sethpayne Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 An article came out recently in the SLC tribune concerning the other topic I brought up, women and the priesthood.http://www.sltrib.co...eneral.html.cspThe concern I have is this new habit of bullying the Church into one's views using emotional rhetoric to shame the Church. For example, there is a lot of talk about how the Church should accept women and the Priesthood because of so much "pain" women in the Church feel (even though a separate pole showed only 10% of LDS women interviewed wanted the priesthood...) Some of this wording sounds extremely close to the wording used to try to bully the Church into accepting gays.Some cite blacks and the Priesthood, which is flawed considering it was a policy ban, and I do not believe there was any written scripture, revelation, or doctrine that required such a ban.Now that people want doctrinal changes, there seems to be this new strategy of shaming, and I am concerned if the Church gives in, two things become apparent.1. The Church is not, in fact, true as social pressure changes core doctrine and our Prophet would have lost control.2. The Church would then be easy pray to additional changes through social pressures and shaming.As mentioned by others, the RLDS/CC did not do well by changing to social whims. They seem to be devolving into obscurity.I understand the SSM issues to be a doctrinal one but is there clear doctrinal support for women & the priesthood? The scriptures do have several examples of women in prophetic roles and, I would assume, they would have had to have priesthood authority to receive and transmit revelation to Israel. Plus, women exercise priesthood authority and perform priesthood ordinances in the temple every day.I've always thought of the women/priesthood matter an issue of policy, not doctrine. I mean, there was a time in the Church where women blessed their Children/animals etc...Anyway, I'm not expert on the history of this practice so perhaps there is solid doctrinal support that I'm not aware of.SethOf course, this hasn't been a huge area of study for me. 2
happy Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 Sounds like good changes, to me. Where is the "bullying", in this? Asking for reasonable change is not bullying, that I can see.If you don't believe in the Church, then yes, they seem like good changes for a man-made organization managed by social pressures. 1
Libs Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Libs:Demanding unreasonable change is bullying.Did you read the article, SS? Can those changes really be considered unreasonable? I sure don't think so. 2
Libs Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 If you don't believe in the Church, then yes, they seem like good changes for a man-made organization managed by social pressures.Really? I think I would have considered those changes very reasonable, even as an active member. They're not asking for women to receive the Priesthood. Just that they be given a little more active and visible role, within church leadership.
happy Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 Did you read the article, SS? Can those changes really be considered unreasonable? I sure don't think so."Those" is a generalization. The article included changing the Priesthood to include women. The doctrinal reason against it was it is a representation of Christ, who was male, and was the bride-groom of the Church.
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Sethpayne:I'm fine with women given more Priesthood roles at Gods' command. Until then I think we should stick with what we got. 2
happy Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 Really? I think I would have considered those changes very reasonable, even as an active member. They're not asking for women to receive the Priesthood. Just that they be given a little more active and visible role, within church leadership.If that is the focus, then yes, I agree. More women speakers in conference, more women praying. But that was not all the article said. It also included Ward Clerk positions, etc. which require priesthood authority.
Libs Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) "Those" is a generalization. The article included changing the Priesthood to include women. The doctrinal reason against it was it is a representation of Christ, who was male, and was the bride-groom of the Church.Well, I didn't see anything in the article that suggested changing the Priesthood. Perhaps, I missed it. Will read again (or maybe you could point it out). The suggestion was to make RS President more on the level of a Stake President, to allow women to pray at GC, and have more speaking roles, in GC. And, also, to have the RS President present, when young girls are interviewed by the Bishop (which, seems like something that would protect the Bishop, as well as the young girl). Edited August 17, 2012 by Libs
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Libs:Yes they are unreasonable, and yes I did read the article.
Popular Post bluebell Posted August 17, 2012 Popular Post Posted August 17, 2012 The only thing that i'm not sure i'm comfortable with in that article is that the sister speaking seems to be speaking on behalf of all LDS women when she talks about the 'tremendous pain' we all supposedly feel.I personally don't feel that pain, and have never talked with a sister who does (though i know they are out there) so it seems dramatic and misleading for her to say that, like she (whom i have nothing at all against) is the LDS woman's spokeswoman. I think she likely speaks for the minority. Though there is nothing wrong with that, i wish she had been more clear in her wording so that that was evident. 7
happy Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 And, also, to have the RS President present, when young girls are interviewed by the Bishop (which, seems like something that would protect the Bishop, as well as the young girl).This one is the most unreasonable (the article wanted the RS President to conduct the interview, which violates the idea that the Bishop is the Judge of Israel)
Garden Girl Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Sethpayne:I'm fine with women given more Priesthood roles at Gods' command. Until then I think we should stick with what we got.I agree... but it has to be at God's command. I personally don't think it will or should happen. GG
Mark Beesley Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 The article was really a compilation of lots of ideas from lots of women coming from lots of different directions. I didn't see it as a bullying tactic to force the Church into submission because the article didn't really push for any particular resolution to what a few women see as a problem in the Church. If anything, the article seemed to focus and advocate more for a middle ground approach to greater female involvement in the Church, i.e. not necessarily advocating priesthood ordination, but giving women more access to the decision-making process in the Church. On its face, that would appear reasonable, and to the extent the Lord needs more input from females in order to administer HIS Church, I am confident that will and does occur.The primary problem I saw with the article is that it would seem to paint a broader picture of discontent among LDS women than actually exists. Surely, there are some who are discontent, and they likely associate with others who share a similar viewpoint, thus magnifying the nature of the problem in their own eyes. But in reality it would seem that very few women in the Church are discontent with their role. And to the extent that women are not as active in in the Church hierarchy as 19th Century women were, I would attribute that to a number of factors, among them a greater female presence in the workforce diminishing their time for Church activity, and a more complete Church organization than existed 150 years ago. 2
Tacenda Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I liked the very last paragraph, and the bolded part I agree with, not so much into the idea of women holding the priesthood, but with having more power in order to lessen the load that the priesthood brethren have to hold. Jana Riess, a Mormon writer in Cincinnati, reluctantly agrees."For the last 90 years, everything has been channeled through the priesthood — all decisionmaking, rituals, everything that goes on in Mormon life," Riess says. "Women are completely shut out from having input into decisionmaking that affects their lives and their families."Riess is reconciled to the idea that she doesn’t need the priesthood to enjoy the rituals, but is deeply troubled that "women are so systematically underutilized."She sees two paths forward: Women either get the priesthood or the priesthood is expanded to accommodate greater involvement and visibility for women.That large middle group seems to be pushing for the latter.
happy Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 I agree... but it has to be at God's command. I personally don't think it will or should happen.GGBut that is the problem. People seem to want to shame or bully the Church into human ideas and decisions. Wouldn't that violate the entire storyline presented in the temple?
happy Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 What is strange is that women want to be represented by women more, yet if Christ, a male Himself, wants His Priesthood to represent Him through men, that is bad.
Popular Post sethpayne Posted August 17, 2012 Popular Post Posted August 17, 2012 I agree... but it has to be at God's command. I personally don't think it will or should happen.GGMy question is did God ever commend that women NOT exercise priesthood authority. They seemed to in a limited sense in the late 19th century (and still do in the temple today).Is this just one of those practices that we've picked up along the way or is there revelation/doctrine to support the current practice? Women used to not be able to pray in Sacrament meeting. That changed. It was a practice, not doctrine.Again, I don't know but from my limited understanding it seems that women not exercising priesthood authority is more supported by tradition than revelation.Sincerely -- if there are sources I'm not considering or aware of please let me know as this is an interesting subject. 5
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I agree... but it has to be at God's command. I personally don't think it will or should happen.GGGG: I think Mrs. God has all the authority she wants.
Tacenda Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) My question is did God ever commend that women NOT exercise priesthood authority. They seemed to in a limited sense in the late 19th century (and still do in the temple today).Is this just one of those practices that we've picked up along the way or is there revelation/doctrine to support the current practice? Women used to not be able to pray in Sacrament meeting. That changed. It was a practice, not doctrine.Again, I don't know but from my limited understanding it seems that women not exercising priesthood authority is more supported by tradition than revelation.Sincerely -- if there are sources I'm not considering or aware of please let me know as this is an interesting subject.I hope one day to hear more women speak at conference for both men and women. There are some powerful voices among women and I believe would do alot of good for our younger women.I'm going to say something about this and I hope I don't derail, in Young Women's they are extra heavy on dressing properly now. My neighbor's daughter has a swimsuit that is a tankini and it showed just a little bit of skin, but her mom said she wouldn't wear to the church pool party for fear she'd be judged so she dug out her whole piece swimming suit. I think women need to put a stop to this and see that women aren't or shouldn't be looked at as sex objects, a little skin should not be something that the men should be afraid of. It seems that we are going backwards and it's scaring me to death. We shouldn't get anywhere near the mindset of the Muslims and the wearing of the burka in countries like India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They didn't always have to wear burkas, it evolved that way. I hate to compare but it has bothered me and I combine this mindset to the mindset that women in the church have less power than they did in the early church that Joseph Smith set up. Edited August 17, 2012 by Tacenda
KevinG Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 There is a common link between the Saints who try to counsel the church on changing policies to suit them and those who insist on going beyond policies to enforce extra rules (i.s. one piece swimsuits).They are steadying the arc or assuming authority they don't have to fix problems that don't exist.I would not use the word bullying to describe the complaints of the disaffected.I would use murmuring. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/2.11?lang=eng#10 3
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Sethpayne:http://mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church
mapman Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 It's more like begging than bullying because they're women and men ultimately get to make decisions like this in the church.My opinion is that a lot of these ideas are good ideas that should be implemented and don't need revelation to do so. I don't have a position about ordination of women. I'd be very happy if it happened, but I think that would definitely need a revelation and I'm not going to agitate for it. I think it is a good thing that people are examining the history of women in the church and thinking through their relationship with the priesthood of God. 1
Recommended Posts