Official Declaration 3

[wenglund]

Thats a bit of a stretch isn't it?

By their very nature hypotheticals tend to be a stretch.

However, what I gather from my more than half-century experience, there seems to be no rational bounds for the hyper-critical and chronic discontents. Regardless of how good they may have it, or reasonable and appropriate things may be structured, or how politically correct, these busy bodies will invariably find fault and have reason to complain and stick their noses into the Church's business. In fact, it seems that the nicer the picnic, the greater then number of flies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

By their very nature hypotheticals tend to be a stretch.

However, what I gather from my more than half-century experience, there seems to be no rational bounds for the hyper-critical and chronic discontents. Regardless of how good they may have it, or reasonable and appropriate things may be structured, or how politically correct, these busy bodies will invariably find fault and have reason to complain and stick their noses into the Church's business. In fact, it seems that the nicer the picnic, the greater then number of flies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you are a church member the churches business is your business, though from what your posts suggest you don't think that is the case?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

" To Whom It May Concern:

On October 7, 2012, at the 182nd Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President Henry B Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early October of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Thomas S. Monson extending priesthood to all worthy members (i.e. Women) of the Church. President Monson has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously."

Supposing this announcement is made during general conference answer the following:

1. What would your initial reaction be?

2. What would the Church's reaction be (glad acceptance, schism?)

3. With regard to the leadership, what changes would be made and what would the new church look like?

4. Discuss any other salient aspects of such a change.

I would be all for it, if I could get out of home teaching.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Maybe, but they would be demanding Church funding for birth control.

??

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't think it will heavily impact the church. The church will continue on as it always has.

I don't think it will happen any time soon and the membership shouldn't hold its breath.

It will not happen...in certain circumstances women fulfill Priesthood responsibilities already and some hold the awesome role of Presidents. Not to mention the most important role of motherhood...we have the highest respect for women and all who enter the temple are ordained to become Priesthood holders and rightly so.

[teddyaware]

I don't believe women will ever hold the priesthood per se. Rather, they will be priestesses within a Holy Priestesshood that will have a different but complimentary role to the priesthoods conferred upon men.

[Mark Beesley]

1. What would your initial reaction be?

Serves 'em right.

[wenglund]

If you are a church member the churches business is your business, though from what your posts suggest you don't think that is the case?

May I suggest you take some basic courses in stewardship and lines of authority because you appear to not understand such fundamental distinctions like that between leader and follower.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

But the way things stand the chances of any otherwise completly capable female serving as Bishop is 0%

Should you or I change avatars...I have had this a vey long time, and right now you may not want to confused as me? Edited October 1, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Tacenda]

Should you or change avatars...I have Had this a vey log time, and right now you may not want to confused as me?

For about a half of a second I'd wondered if you had gone and changed your identity for some reason, pa pa.

[ANACO]

4. Discuss any other salient aspects of such a change.

Then I suppose the name of the priesthood will then be "after the order of the women-libbers of god."

Then they'll start preaching about the necessity of Asherah.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't believe women will ever hold the priesthood per se. Rather, they will be priestesses within a Holy Priestesshood that will have a different but complimentary role to the priesthoods conferred upon men.

If you are a priestess, you by definition are a member of the priesthood. What would you propose would be the theological difference between "holding the priesthood" and "holding the priesthesshood"?

Edited September 30, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[teddyaware]

If you are a priestess, you by definition are a member of the priesthood. What would you propose would be the theological difference between "holding the priesthood" and "holding the priesthesshood"?

From an eternal perspective, the Holy Priestesshood will likely pertain to the exclusive female roles of Eternal Bride, Eternal Mother, Eternal Queen, and Eternal Member of the Patriarchal/Matriarchal Godhead.

From an earthly/temporal perspective, the Holy Priestesshood will probably more fully set forth and comprehend the roles women enact in the work of the Holy Temple and in leadership positions within a more greatly empowered Relief Society.

We are often taught the divinely-prescribed different but complimentary roles of men and women are expected to carry out here on earth. So, in similar fashion, it's likely the Priestesshood will also be different but complimentary to the Priesthood.

Finally, I do agree that the Holy Priestesshood will be subsumed within and authorized by the Holy Priesthood (i.e. it will not be autonomous). Therefore, it will be intrinsically connected to the Holy Priesthood as an appendage, in much the same way the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Bottom line? I think it's very unlikely we will ever see a woman serve as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not because they are inferior to men, but because the are to serve different but equally important and complimentary leadership roles in the Lord's Church. The key phrase to remember, then, is "different but equally important and complimentary."

Remember, as far as we now know God the Father and God the Son will forever remain the "front-men" in the leadership of the Heaveny Kningdom, this no doubt modeIing the continued, primary male leadership roles in the governing of the Kingdom of God in the eternities. I presume God the Mother plays an equally important and complimentary role behind the scenes. We will learn much more about her indispensable and supernal role in the divine scheme of things when we are more worthy. For now, though, we are commanded to commune only with the Godhead personages of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Ultimately, it must be clearly asserted that the foregoing is simply speculative. But there is one central point of fact on this issue that cannot be summarily dismissed as mere speculation: It is verily true that in the eternities, in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, women will be exalted as Queens and Priestesses in the Kingdom of God, whatever one might understand those titles to mean and entail.

Edited September 30, 2012 by teddyaware

[Rivers]

We could then look forward to Official Declaration 4 when same-sex marriage becomes sanctioned.

[Carborendum]

5. Thank the heavens my chances of being called as a Bishop are cut in half.

I hope I haven't posted this on the forum before. But it's good enough that I won't feel too bad if I do.

(True Story)

My friend came to me and said,"Hey (Joe). Guess what?"

Me: You took your wife out over the weekend and had a wonderful time.

Friend: No... BETTER than that.

Me: You got your tax returns back and it was pretty big.

Friend: No... BETTER than that.

Me: You won an all expense paid trip to Hawaii and plenty of vacation time at work to enjoy it.

Friend: No... BETTER than that.

Me: You won the lottery.

Friend: No... BETTER than that.

Me: You got released from the bishopric.

Friend: No...

Edited September 30, 2012 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

... Declaration 3 didn't go far enough since it failed to include Church funding of sex-change operations for its members.

I think it more likely that they would complain about:

1) As ANACO pointed out--the worship of Asherah.

2) Worship of Heavenly Mother--incl prayers to the same.

3) Requiring a change to the Church's position on abortion.

4) Allowing widows to remarry in temple and be sealed to multiple men.

I don't see this really being connected to sex-change operations.

[Carborendum]

1. What would your initial reaction be? Hmm. Interesting.

2. What would the Church's reaction be (glad acceptance, schism?) About the same as OD 2. Some would be really put off by it. But the vast majority of the saints would be in support of it.

3. With regard to the leadership, what changes would be made and what would the new church look like? There wouldn't be immediate changes. There would simply be another quorum of priesthood--and possibly branch of the priesthood.

4. Discuss any other salient aspects of such a change.

A) Home teaching would be SOO much easier. More active adults for the same overall population.

B) Callings for "busy" positions would be scrutinized much more since there are commonly efforts to keep husbands and wives out of two high-stress callings at the same time.

C) Would there be a "Releif Society" quorum of the Melchizedek Priesthood? Or would the "priesthood of Eve" be a third branch of the priesthood? If a third branch, what would their authority be for? They may still be ineligible to hold callings like bishop. If they can move within the Melch. PH, then we'd have a lot less of the bashing of husbands and fathers in the priesthood session of General Conf.

D) If this extends to teenagers, i.e. teen girls receive the Aaronic PH, then it would make discussion of the law of chastity more difficult/inappropriate for such a setting.

E) There may be impacts to the Temple Ceremony. 'nuff said.

A LOT of things would be impacted.

[Carborendum]

I was a kid when OD 2 was issued. I was aware of the policy at the time. But I never really thought about it much.

When OD 2 was approved, everyone I personallly knew that heard about it was VERY excited. Some were unclear about whether that really meant what they thought it meant. (notice, it never actually says anything about blacks). But by additional statements and communications with the apostles, it soon became clear.

I'd heard about some being disaffected over it. But those I knew in my home ward and stake were all very excited and uplifted by it. I have no idea why anyone would have complained about it.

However, with this hypothetical OD 3, there isn't near the impetus for it. OD2 was necessary for the functioning of the church in areas where there were so few non-black decendents that it crippled the operational capacity of churches and temples in those areas. No such dearth exists due to women being excluded from the same.

[Bob Crockett]

Joseph Smith changed the mandate that women be silent in the church to women can't rule in the church. Very unlikely this will ever change.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[BCSpace]

Sonia Johnson for first female Apostle.

Does she change her name to Paulette or Pauline?

[Cobalt-70]

From an eternal perspective, the Holy Priestesshood will likely pertain to the exclusive female roles of Eternal Bride, Eternal Mother, Eternal Queen, and Eternal Member of the Patriarchal/Matriarchal Godhead.

...

Bottom line? I think it's very unlikely we will ever see a woman serve as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not because they are inferior to men, but because the are to serve different but equally important and complimentary leadership roles in the Lord's Church. The key phrase to remember, then, is "different but equally important and complimentary."

"Separate but equal" doesn't have a very good track record. It doesn't really mean equal, does it? When women are confined to a "special role," and men aren't, or if the "role" for men is to preside over women, and the "role" for women is to "hearken unto his counsel," then how is that truly equal? It's like saying that master and slave are "equal," but they just have separate and distinct roles within God's plan.

[cdowis]

Sigh.... Another "what if" thread.

What if .....Pres. Monson resigned and the church replaced him with a professional minister? Do you think we would need to replace the present church leadership as well?

What if .....the church sold off the three BYU campuses and used the money to open malls in different cities. What would be your reaction? What if ......you were to wake up in the morning with three eyes. What would be your reaction? How would this affect your family? Could this become a new requirement to become a church leader, since you could see things more clearly.

What if.....the moderators would reject "what if" threads as they do with political threads. Would you continue to participate in this forum?

Edited October 1, 2012 by cdowis

[Cobalt-70]

Such a hypothetical OD3 could happen. There is no doctrinal impediment to this, and the current policy is no more scripturally-mandated (and probably even less so) than the church's racial discrimination policy prior to OD2. When asked whether "it [is] possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks," Gordon B. Hinckley said, "He could change them yes. If He were to change them [a revelation is] the only way it would happen." But he didn't think the change would be any time soon, because the women of the church were not "agitating" for it.

It's time to start (ever so gently, loyally, and nicely) agitating. For the last century or so, priesthood power has gradually actually been taken from women. Through the Endowment, women are "prepared to officiate" in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood. Women used to be permmitted to officiate in blessings for healing, including the anointing with oil and the sealing of the anointings. Now, the only ordinance that women can perform is the washing and anointing. There is no reason why this trend cannot be gradually reversed. It doesn't necessarily even need a dramatic OD3.

As far as leadership and church service by women is concerned, there is also no canonized scriptural impediment against women presiding in the church, or performing roles in the church not scripturally tied to a priesthood office. Women already preside, including presiding over men (in the Primary). There is no scriptural impediment preventing young women from passing the sacrament, or preventing women from being executive secretaries, ward clerks, and Sunday School presidents. Women can be missionaries--why not mission presidents?

Edited October 1, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as we are making fanciful predictions, I'll go ahead and repeat mine that if there is to be an OD 3, it will be the canonization of "The Family: a Proclamation to the World." I see that as far more likely and necessary than what is predicted in the opening post.

[cdowis]

It's time to start agitating! For the last century or so, priesthood power has gradually actually been taken from women.

I think you are talking about the wrong church.

I am sure there are many churches who would welcome someone with that philosophy -- church doctrine by consensus. I wish you all the best.