Official Declaration 3

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

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 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?

Amen. Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread? The entire situation is absurd. We should have been the first people in the modern age to continue to embrace ordaining women to the Priesthood, but we've mingled the false traditions of the fathers and the philosophies of men with scripture and cried "A Priesthood! A Priesthood! We have got a Priesthood, and there cannot be any more Priesthood!"

[Cobalt-70]

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

It's called the doctrine of "common consent." Why have such a doctrine if it doesn't really mean anything. Common consent exists because sometimes, the membership of the church as a whole can be inspired by the Holy Spirit in ways that would escape the church if it were run 100% according to the "benevolent leader" model.

[volgadon]

Amen. Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread?

The question has almost never arisen in my experience, but yes, I have.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I hereby revise that question to read "Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread and given her an answer that didn't make you feel like a total schmoe?" Because I personally have not been successful in that department. What purpose does separating men and women into "separate but equal" (an absolutely cringe-worthy connotation, that) offices serve? And let's remember -- if we want to resort to Mystery -- that it was Cowper's hymn that is the source of the phrase that God moves in mysterious ways, not the Bible, which says that there is neither male nor female when we are one in Christ, and quite openly includes Prophetesses such as Miriam, Deborah the Bee, Huldah, Anna from Luke, the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist, and Isaiah's wife.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Amen. Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread? The entire situation is absurd. We should have been the first people in the modern age to continue to embrace ordaining women to the Priesthood, but we've mingled the false traditions of the fathers and the philosophies of men with scripture and cried "A Priesthood! A Priesthood! We have got a Priesthood, and there cannot be any more Priesthood!"

It is historical precedence. When God has needed women to lead Israel he raised them up...he did so to lead their Nation, never "His" Prieshood.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

That would be the end.

[seeker56]

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?

hey yeah, no problem - I wasn't techno savvy enough to upload my regular avatar to this board. Sunset's all yours, good choice

[Buckeye]

I hereby revise that question to read "Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread and given her an answer that didn't make you feel like a total schmoe?" Because I personally have not been successful in that department. What purpose does separating men and women into "separate but equal" (an absolutely cringe-worthy connotation, that) offices serve?

My daughters are too young at the moment to question this practice, but here is what I tell my sons.

There is no canonized scripture that relates to passing the sacrament. The only scriptural instructions relate to administering the sacrament (D/C 20) and those instructions specifically exclude deacons and teachers from administering. For this reason, for the first decades of the church, only priests participated in the sacrament. Also note that during these years it was uncommon for children or youth to attend sacrament meetings.

At some point in the late 19th century (I don't have dates memorized), chapels began to accomodate larger numbers, children began to attend sacrament meeting, and the lower AP offices began to be extended to younger men. In time, some congregations desired for deacons and teachers to participate in the sacrament (mostly to help with the burden), but there was concern as to the D/C 20's prohibition on their administering the sacrament. It was determined by church leadership that administering only relates to blessing the sacrament, and eventually the practice developed that teachers could prepare the sacrament and deacons pass the sacrament because those actions are not administering.. The idea began (and largely persists) that deacon's and teacher's participation is part of the priesthood duties. In fact, this idea is cemented in the current CHI. However, no scripture says that priesthood is needed to pass the sacrament.

As to the practice, ask yourself, what is the functional difference between a Deacon taking the sacrament tray from the hand of a Priest and carrying it to the first pew vs. a Laurel sitting on that pew who takes the tray from the Deacon and passing it to her family? Nothing. They're the same action. One just covers more ground and is more visible in the ordinance. But as I impress strongly on my Deacons, they are to be as circumspect and unseen as possible during the ordinace. The sacrament is about the Savior; not them.

So for the young women (and old), I say, you already do the same thing as the Deacons, just within a smaller sphere that our culture is accepting of at this time. Can this practice change? Sure. But right now there is far too little desire for change from the membership, in particular the women.

On a related note, I will point out that for whatever reason my daughters seem to be more quick than my sons to pick up on cultural gender roles. I commonly hear them discussing "this is what boys do and this is what girls do." Such discussions are much rarer for my boys. I'm not sure why this is, but it echos what I see in the adult population as well.

[Saints Alive]

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

I've always thought that if you dont want to participate in a forum or even a particular thread you were free to do so... don't need the mods to stop it. guess some people just have to throw their two cents in (me being one of them).

On another note. If women had the same priesthood as men could we do away with sunday school?

[wenglund]

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.

Are you thinking that the busy bodies, wannabes, and self-appointed PC police need a rational connection for their agendas? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 1, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread? The entire situation is absurd.

Exactly! And, have you ever had to explain to a five-year-old boy why he can't now pass the sacrament? Or, why someone else's daddy gets to now sit on the stand and his doesn't?

Inequality is always absurd. Life isn't about rational or pragmatic progression, it is about equality of every sort. The sacrament isn't about the Savior and convanents, it is about who gets to pass the sacrament. Anyone of any age should be able to pass the sacrament if they want, or collect fast offerings, or baptize. Kids should be able to baptize themselves and decide the topics for sacrament meeting. Any and all dads and moms should sit on the stand, and no one should suffer the heart-wrenching travesty of having to sit in the audience. Everyone should be attending primary. Men should wear dresses and high heals. All of us should be the same height and weight and live in the same type of house and in the same locations. After all, this is the Lord's Church, which means that we should be on the leading edge of political correctness, and instead of the Lord and his chosen leaders deciding what is best for the Church, this should be left to those among us who are the most sensitive to social issues and who think they know what is right and best.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 1, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I hereby revise that question to read "Has anyone here tried to explain to a little girl why she can't pass out the sacrament bread and given her an answer that didn't make you feel like a total schmoe?" Because I personally have not been successful in that department. What purpose does separating men and women into "separate but equal" (an absolutely cringe-worthy connotation, that) offices serve? And let's remember -- if we want to resort to Mystery -- that it was Cowper's hymn that is the source of the phrase that God moves in mysterious ways, not the Bible, which says that there is neither male nor female when we are one in Christ, and quite openly includes Prophetesses such as Miriam, Deborah the Bee, Huldah, Anna from Luke, the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist, and Isaiah's wife.

Things work best when done in concert and parallel RT = R/N. It does not work better when all are competing for the same duties and roll reversals seldom work well.

[Cobalt-70]

On a related note, I will point out that for whatever reason my daughters seem to be more quick than my sons to pick up on cultural gender roles. I commonly hear them discussing "this is what boys do and this is what girls do." Such discussions are much rarer for my boys. I'm not sure why this is, but it echos what I see in the adult population as well.

I have daughters as well, and they are not stupid. They pick up on the gender inequality and forced gender roles at church, which they don't typically experience in their non-church lives, and it is troubling. One of my greatest fears is to see their independent spirits gradually wither under the weight of the patriarchy. It is not just in the arbitrary decision to prevent them from passing the sacrament, or forcing them to wait two extra years before going on a mission (in case they get married and start their far greater mission of making babies, apparently). They get sent similar patriarchal messages by things like the disparity between young women activities (e.g., doing domestic things in the cultural center, like crafts, or cooking) and young men activities (e.g., river rafting).

[KevinG]

I hate to crush stereotypes but I just had a court of honor where two of my charges made Tenderfoot. When I asked them what their favorite thing was about the whole experience (fire, knives, rope, hiking, camping...) they both replied "cooking".

Go figure?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have daughters as well, and they are not stupid. They pick up on the gender inequality and forced gender roles at church, which they don't typically experience in their non-church lives, and it is troubling. One of my greatest fears is to see their independent spirits gradually wither under the weight of the patriarchy. It is not just in the arbitrary decision to prevent them from passing the sacrament, or forcing them to wait two extra years before going on a mission (in case they get married and start their far greater mission of making babies, apparently). They get sent similar patriarchal messages by things like the disparity between young women activities (e.g., doing domestic things in the cultural center, like crafts, or cooking) and young men activities (e.g., river rafting).

My son's were assigned gender roles...waiting for a "woman" to go out gives them maturity they will need, because in the world in which we live they are viewed as easier targets. This also allows 2 or 3 years of College, making even better prepared.

[Bart Burk]

I think if you will look at most Christian churches that ordain women to the priesthood you generally find the first thing they do is loosen the moral code of the church due to their misplaced compassion. Just look at the Episcopalians and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for proof. And many of the Methodist preachers I've seen who are in favor of gay marriage are women. And we won't even begin to talk about Catholic nuns and their liberal leanings.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Cobalt-70]

My son's were assigned gender roles...waiting for a "woman" to go out gives them maturity they will need, because in the world in which we live they are viewed as easier targets. This also allows 2 or 3 years of College, making even better prepared.

Have you ever met a 19 year old man side-by-side with a 19 year old woman? What is the likelihood that the young women is less mature than the young man? It's a developmental thing. Besides, if we expect these 19-21 year old women to be able to get married and have babies, then surely we can expect them to take care of themselves on a mission.

[Cobalt-70]

I think if you will look at most Christian churches that ordain women to the priesthood you generally find the first thing they do is loosen the moral code of the church due to their misplaced compassion. Just look at the Episcopalians and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for proof. And many of the Methodist preachers I've seen who are in favor of gay marriage are women. And we won't even begin to talk about Catholic nuns and their liberal leanings.

Putting aside your slippery-slope argument, let me just say this: Compassion is never misplaced.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Buckeye:

Your answer is about the best we can do at the moment, and I definitely commend you for it since it is so much better than a lot of the stuff I've heard. At the same time, I think it is still extremely inadequate. The fundamental point, which you acknowledge, is that there is simply no need for Priesthood to pass the sacrament. I would also add that if women held the Priesthood, the entire issue would just dissolve away. Equating the Deacon passing the sacrament with the Laurel passing it to her neighbor is just ... sophistry, man. I just think it's a bummer.

Wade:

Inequality is always absurd. Life isn't about rational or pragmatic progression, it is about equality of every sort.

True enough. After all, the Lord Himself asked us to "Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?" Of course, we know that "if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever." So, since the Lord (who imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also, while little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned) has said that His way is to promote equality in contrast to the iniquities of the false traditions of the fathers which we are supposed to put away, then if we are to become more Christlike, we will do away with artificial and unnecessary inequalities and become a people for whom there is neither male nor female because all are one in the Lord.

The sacrament isn't about the Savior and convanents, it is about who gets to pass the sacrament.

If, as you sarcastically imply, the sacrament is entirely about the Savior and the covenants and it doesn't matter who passes it, then why should girls be excluded? Is there something about girls that would detract from the sacrament being about the Savior?

Anyone of any age should be able to pass the sacrament if they want, or collect fast offerings, or baptize.

Of course. Unless they're too young or too old to be able to do so without, y'know, spilling the water or losing the offering, or they haven't been baptized themselves. Why shouldn't young women baptize, just like the young men? Oh, right, they don't have Priesthood. Why don't they have the Priesthood today, despite the fact that women have held it earlier in the Restoration? Well ... *crickets*

Kids should be able to baptize themselves [...] Everyone should be attending primary.

I think the reason we don't baptize ourselves is because part of the symbolism of baptism has to do with being received into a preexisting community. You need someone who is already a part of it, who is old enough to carry out the initiation without being distracted by cheerios and coloring books. Primary is a program intended to facilitate the learning of children; personally, while I understand the rationale for dividing learning environments by age, I would have no problem with just letting the kids sit with the adults, since I think that observing the adult environment could be even more effective as a learning experience than age-based segregation. The point is, even when I disagree with the efficacy of certain practices, these are not arbitrary standards, and we might note that they have nothing to do with gender.

Men should wear dresses and high heals.

Sure, why not? They're just clothes, who cares? Moroni came to Joseph naked but for a loose-fitted robe, which was open enough to reveal his bosom; there's nothing gender-specific about high heels, and both women and men used to wear them up until around the time of the French Revolution.

All of us should be the same height and weight and live in the same type of house and in the same locations.

Height and weight are genetically determined and are mostly out of our control, except for whatever shaping we can do through exercise. While I don't think the outward style of houses should be predetermined for everyone, I do agree that there should be some minimum standard that all people have access to -- a roof, a heater, running water and toilets, enough space for everyone to sleep.

After all, this is the Lord's Church, which means that we should be on the leading edge of political correctness, and instead of the Lord and his chosen leaders deciding what is best for the Church, this should be left to those among us who are the most sensitive to social issues and who think they know what is right and best.

Now you're getting it. Everything shall be done by common consent, and amen to our Priesthood the minute we try to use authoritarianism rather than persuasion to influence others.

[Buckeye]

I have daughters as well, and they are not stupid. They pick up on the gender inequality and forced gender roles at church, which they don't typically experience in their non-church lives, and it is troubling. One of my greatest fears is to see their independent spirits gradually wither under the weight of the patriarchy. It is not just in the arbitrary decision to prevent them from passing the sacrament, or forcing them to wait two extra years before going on a mission (in case they get married and start their far greater mission of making babies, apparently). They get sent similar patriarchal messages by things like the disparity between young women activities (e.g., doing domestic things in the cultural center, like crafts, or cooking) and young men activities (e.g., river rafting).

I can relate Cobalt, but I'm not that fearful. Look at the big picture. Compared to the history of mankind and all of the places on the globe where our daughters could have bene born, the fact they are born to us as this time is a pretty good deal. We're debating rafting trips, mission delays, and participation in priesthood ordinances. Yes, these matter a lot to me, but would you rather be debating whether your daughters can learn to read, drive a car, or even show their face in public? We have it pretty good. And we're making progress. Keep your chin up.

The little I have learned (my daughters are pretty young) impresses on me that the best I can do is set before them all things good and impress upon them that they can chose. I try not to push them into what I would chose in the shoes. As one example, early on my oldest daughter developed a strong affinity for pink. I recoiled at this for a few weeks, but then came to terms with it. I had not pushed the color on her. Maybe the choice was affected by environmental factors, but to a signficant degree she also chose it. And most importantly she loves it. I continue to impress on her that many other colors are good, and I mildly correct her when she gets the impression that some colors are only for boys or girls. This means I wear pink dress shirts myself. She thinks that's cool.

I try to take the same tact with all gender issues. I do not insist that the young women in my ward do the same activities as boys. In fact, two weeks ago they were painting nails as part of personal progress. But I do strongly stand by their ability to partcipate in any way that the CHI allows. So this summer they had a three day white water rafting "high adventure" - funded to the same degree as the young men's camps and high adventure. They loved it.

[swfarnsworth]

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

The doctrinal ramifications of that (i.e., Exaltation would be completely different) would cause me to leave the Church and probably religion in general. The afterlife concepts of other religions are not a worthwhile use of an eternity to me, so I might as well enjoy life now while some things still have a point.

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.

My guess is the "Priesthood of Eve" (thus ruining the number of spires on every temple with two or six), which I assume would be charged with all the exact same things the RS is currently assigned to do, making the whole thing a meaningless gesture.

They would probably keep the two separate during 3rd hour for that reason since, again, it would be a meaningless gesture. (I'm just speculating, of course.)

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.

Sounds more like a new section of the D&C rather than an OD because it does not represent a change in policy.

They get sent similar patriarchal messages by things like the disparity between young women activities (e.g., doing domestic things in the cultural center, like crafts, or cooking) and young men activities (e.g., river rafting).

We went river rafting when I was a teacher, and I hated it. I would have much more enjoyed cooking at the time, and this is still the case. I agree that it shouldn't be assumed that the girls will enjoy doing domestic tasks, but even boys who aren't "rugged" or "scoutish" have to suffer under the assumption that they will like camping, hiking, and knots.

[Buckeye]

Buckeye:

Your answer is about the best we can do at the moment, and I definitely commend you for it since it is so much better than a lot of the stuff I've heard. At the same time, I think it is still extremely inadequate. The fundamental point, which you acknowledge, is that there is simply no need for Priesthood to pass the sacrament. I would also add that if women held the Priesthood, the entire issue would just dissolve away. Equating the Deacon passing the sacrament with the Laurel passing it to her neighbor is just ... sophistry, man. I just think it's a bummer.

Just to clarify, I was not saying I support the current practice. I would love for women to exercise priesthood alongside men. I was simply giving the best explanation for why things are as they are.

And while I do believe we could allow women to prepare and pass the sacrament by a change of policy (ie, no priesthood is needed for these actions), I also think that the idea is so engrained in the church that these actions are part of priesthood duty that it would take the same effort to affect such a policy change as it would to give women the priesthood outright.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Just to clarify, I was not saying I support the current practice. I would love for women to exercise priesthood alongside men. I was simply giving the best explanation for why things are as they are.

Oh, no, I got that, and I didn't meant to imply differently. I agree. I just find that for me, even the best explanation, in this case ... isn't enough. So it's frustrating.

Edited October 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[swfarnsworth]

Why shouldn't young women baptize, just like the young men? Oh, right, they don't have Priesthood.

When I was eight, if I got to pick who would baptize me, it would have been my mom. It's not that I didn't like my dad at the time, but she was a stay-at-home mom and I had been in her presence for the majority of my life up to that point. Having my dad baptize me was something meaningful that only* he could do for me.

Unsurprisingly, that act alone was not enough to balance out everything my mother had done for me up to that point. It took hours of deep discussions when I got older to make a dent.

*Given, my grandfather could have technically done it, or any other priest, but they would have been "usurping" my dad's ability to baptize his first born child and only son.

[Lightbearer]

" 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.

Moot point, because it will never, can never happen. The hypothetical itself is based on a false assumption, that women do not already enjoy the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant of the priesthood. If they are sealed in the temple or for that matter have their own endowment then they already enjoy the blessings and the obligations of keeping the new and everlasting covenant. It is an ignorant and idiotic question because it assumes that God has witheld something from women based on gender. By comparing this to OD 2 a false premise is put forward, that since God changed his mind about priesthood linage (race) then he could do it in this case also. The great flaw here is that women are not under any curse or ban. But if one looks carefully at OD 2 you can notice that OD 2 was expected by most of the church leaders and members (this is not a post about why there was a priesthood ban, only that the ban was expected to be lifted) see the following:

"Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel." (Doctrine and Covenants | Official Declaration 2:5-9)

Notice that the ban was lifted by revelation not by the pressure from activists or apostates, but also note that it was expected and promised that at some point in time that day would come. Now there is no such expectation or promise made by a prophet or an apostle that women would ever be ordained to the priesthood. So this can never happen. It is not in the program. Sorry, but men are men and women are women and each have just as important roles as the others. Apostates who want to try to bring feminism into the Church can go form their own. A much greater possiblity for an OD 3 as already stated by Scott is for the Proclamation on the Family to be cannonized, which I wish it would be, because it is doctrine and it is a revelation. I would vote (give my common consent...which is not a form of revelation as some may think, but a way we covenant to accept the revelation and thus bind ourselves to that revelation) for it to be part of the scriptures. It is inspired and it is very timely with all the attacks from the gay rights SSM agenda driven people.

This idea of wanting women to hold the priesthood is a pride thing, because some feminists hate men so much they cannot abide the idea of being "ruled over" by a man that they insist the church must "change with the times." The truth is I feel sorry for these women that cannot find joy in their own callings they must usurp those placed upon men.