Official Declaration 3

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

swfarnsworth:

I think it's perfectly fine for fathers to baptize, and each individual circumstance will dictate the importance of that event in the family's life. It's the institutional prohibition against women taking part that is the problem, not the individual choices.

Edited October 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[DBMormon]

I don't mind either way, but it certainly would provide some excitement. I think there is room within the teachings of the temple and early church history to allow women to doctrinally hold priesthood. I do not see room however for females to be a bishop. Bishop in New Testament is an implied male. Obviously new revelation could change that.

[Avatar4321]

Worthy members already recieve the priesthood. They just arent all ordained to Priesthood offices.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Of course, that didn't stop Alma the Elder from baptizing himself. (Mos. 18:14.) I think that at least half the things about the priesthood we think are set in stone, actually aren't.

[Tacenda]

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.

You, Cobalt & Jeremy are probably not the norm, but without your voice and input we could go backwards. In fact I think we might. There is a problem with objectification with women. And it's got to stop. It has to do with body image and empowering young women so that they will make good choices. If people have a problem with too much knee showing or a little cleavage make young women feel their body is bad. Over the weekend a local high school sent several young women home from a high school dance. Apparently their dress didn't go quite to the knee. Anyway the school is a little embarrassed they took it so far. And they're going to make it up to them since the girls were devastated by it. I wonder if it's cultural here in Utah. As I've said before on another thread it's overly stressed in church. And that big word I mentioned, objectification , was studied recently by young women students. It's about teaching girls they are much more than what their body looks like. I'll try to link it. Therefore I think we are going backwards.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22374155&nid=148&title=dress-code-stirs-controversy-at-homecoming-dance-new-dance-will-be-held&s_cid=featured-4

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Cobalt-70]

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.

But if you have your exaltation with your single spouse of the opposite gender, you are going to be too busy to worry about what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are doing on a different planet with their hundreds of sealed wives, or what some Adam and Steve might be doing together as potentially-sealed Celestial partners on their own created worlds. Unless you believe in literal spirit babies, and that it literally takes resurrected woman parts to create one, then there is not much of a theological difference.

[Bikeemikey]

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-

Most of the evidence these days suggests the servant leader is most effective and the breaking down of traditional leader/follower models as essential in order to enhance institutional performance; though all we would need to so is look to our scriptures or the prophet js as evidence of this.

We believe in the power of revelation, on the part of the leader and the follower. When someone in the church feels the impact of that revelation it is appropriate to run it up the chain with patience, love and openness.

I fail to see how an insular leadership that does not need/require feedback from the community they serve is a model for anything, it is not what we have; it ought not be what we strive for.

The capacity for the expression of these people to have a place in our church is what makes us great. Not all revelation is created equal, that's why we have a prophet. The the idea we should not express our beliefs within our own church if they have not already been expressed by our leaders would likely have JS turning in his grave.

[Pahoran]

But if you have your exaltation with your single spouse of the opposite gender, you are going to be too busy to worry about what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are doing on a different planet with their hundreds of sealed wives, or what some Adam and Steve might be doing together as potentially-sealed Celestial partners on their own created worlds. Unless you believe in literal spirit babies, and that it literally takes resurrected woman parts to create one, then there is not much of a theological difference.

Cobalt, you really don't know anything at all about LDS life and teaching, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stargazer]

Not that I think that such a thing will ever happen, but if it did, I would be pleased as punch to confer the priesthood upon my wife and ordain her to whichever office might be appropriate.

[wenglund]

Most of the evidence these days suggests the servant leader is most effective and the breaking down of traditional leader/follower models as essential in order to enhance institutional performance; though all we would need to do is look to our scriptures or the prophets as evidence of this

I think you are confusing a governing principle of leadership (servant leader) with an operational structure for leadership (leader/follower model). Christ entails and epitomizes both. He is the servant of all, but also the shepherd over his flock, and his sheep are to follow him. The same is true for his chosen leaders and members.

Even still, I don't see what this has to do with us followers. I don't see how our having servant leadership shepherds somehow makes it appropriate and most effective for us as sheep to stick our noses in the shepherds business and for us as sheep to try and lead the shepherds. Perhaps you can explain.

We believe in the power of revelation, on the part of the leader and the follower. When someone in the church feels the impact of that revelation it is appropriate to run it up the chain with patience, love and openness.

While we do believe in the power of revelation on the part of both leader and follower, we also believe that the revelation to each will be relative to their respective positions. Leaders will receive revelation to assist them in leading, and followers will receive revelation to assist them in following. The sheep will receive revelation for that which is their business, and not for that which isn't. They will not receive revelation regarding shepherding.

In other words, that we have servant leader shepherds among us, doesn't make shepherding the business of the sheep. It doesn't empower sheep to lead the shepherds.

I fail to see how an insular leadership that does not need/require feedback from the community they serve is a model for anything, it is not what we have; it ought not be what we strive for.

I fail to see how shepherds and sheep minding their own respective business would render the shepherds insular or devoid of feedback. Good shepherds will be attentive to the needs of their flock, and will solicit feedback from the sheep where and when and how it is best to do so.

However, this is quite a separate thing from the sheep taking upon themselves to mind the business of the shepherds and for them to attempt to lead the shepherds--not only giving unsolicited feedback, but applying public pressure on the shepherds in matters about which the shepherds are in a position to receive revelation and the sheep are not.

What we should be striving for is shepherds being good shepherds and sheep being good sheep, which entails each minding their own respective business--the former minding the business of leading as shepherds, and the latter minding the business of following as sheep.

What we should be striving against is the inanity of the sheep trying to lead the shepherds.

The capacity for the expression of these people to have a place in our church is what makes us great.

Quite the opposite. What makes us great is that we have great shepherds and great sheep. We are lessened somewhat on those rare occasions when a few vocal sheep presume to lead the shepherds.

Not all revelation is created equal, that's why we have a prophet. The the idea we should not express our beliefs within our own church if they have not already been expressed by our leaders would likely have JS turning in his grave.

Again, quite the opposite. What would make JS turn in his grave is sheep not minding the business of sheep, and presuming to mind the business of and lead the shepherds.

Let me reiterate my suggestion that you take some basic courses on stewardship and lines of authority, paying more particular attention to the role of sheep within the flock.

The problem as I see it isn't with the shepherds not correctly leading the flock, but rather with certain sheep not correctly following. These sheep are thinking so much about good leadership they neglect to think enough about good following. To the extent they do so, they fail to be good sheep.

Said another way, they don't rightly understand or live the foundational governing principle for followers--i.e. humility (which I define as one having an appropriate understanding of one's place in relation to God and others), and are instead subject to pride.

What works best is for we sheep to concern ourselves with humbly being good sheep, and leave being good shepherds to the shepherds.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 2, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

Your exactly right. Christ's Church will continue to be under severe curse as long as it continues such inequitable traditions of the fathers as ordinal distinctions between shepherd and sheep, degrees of glory, differing talents, higher and lower laws, lines of authority and stewardship, imparters and impartees, hearers and deaf, sighted and blind, etc.

Shame on us for thinking in such inequitable and differentiating terms as good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, right and left. well and sick, happiness and sorrow, joy and pain, righteousness and sin, heaven and earth, etc. All should be equal to us.

There is no need for us to become like Christ since it would be damnable for us to even think that we are now unequal with Christ. And, we ought not call the Church by his name since that would cursedly be giving him unequal treatment. What a blasphemy!!!

Worse yet, the whole notion of progression has at its very core the premise of inequality (as one progresses one is no longer equal to what one once was, and one is no longer equal to others who have yet to progress to where one is and/or who didn't progress at the same rate as one).

All these heresies (assuming we can even call them heresies without being inequitable) must eventually be abandoned to remove the curse we are under (assuming we can even consider something a curse without being inequitable).

May I advise that we begin the immense projects of removing all the inequalities that exist solely in our minds, by all hyphenating our last names. In fact, for the sake of equality, let's everyone equally be known as Jeremy Orbe-Smith (though we will have to ignore the inequality of the name "Jeremy" coming before "Orbe-Smith").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

My two cents is that men have the Priesthood hoisted on them for lack of a better word. I for one, don't want the Priesthood. And if it were given to women I think it would only be fair to give it to them with the same pattern that it's been given to men. Can you imagine a 12 yr. old boy saying nope, mom & dad, no thanks, don't want it. Hardly, it's a social condition in our church. Just like baptism at 8 years old.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

My two cents is that men have the Priesthood hoisted on them for lack of a better word.

This is kind of like saying that boys have manhood or fatherhood hoisted on them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Wade:

I think you're confusing currently unavoidable inequalities with the "artificial and unnecessary inequalities" I specified.

We are all at different stages of our progression. This is not at all the same thing as having iniquities enforced, as restricting the Priesthood to men does (for no reason that I can see other than cultural inertia). That is, if someone (an elected God) is wiser than another co-existing Intelligence (me), then that is an unavoidable inequality, because I have not yet progressed to the degree of glory where that God is. But the "Shepherd" metaphor from scripture should not be extended so far as to lose its usefulness; there is a difference between an actual sheep-herder and Christ, and the difference is that Christ is trying to teach us to become like Him. The fundamental point is: the laws of stewardship, etc., which you mention are tools used to erase inequalities, by teaching the deaf to hear, teaching the blind to see, so that all people, men and women, can be glorified together in the at-one-ment. I agree that left is different than right; the point is that some of our policies enforce unnecessary iniquity. The point is that Christ is working to help us grow to become His equals.

[David T]

Not that I think that such a thing will ever happen, but if it did, I would be pleased as punch to confer the priesthood upon my wife and ordain her to whichever office might be appropriate.

And I think it would be beautiful for my wife to be able to do the same for our daughter.

[wenglund]

Wade:

I think you're confusing currently unavoidable inequalities with the "artificial and unnecessary inequalities" I specified.

No. It is just that you aren't grasping my sardonic point--which is that equality, itself, is absurd except in a very limited sense, and that the gospel isn't about equality, per se, but about progression unto Christ--which entails a multitude of inequalities (unavoidable or otherwise, necessary and unnecessary).

People, such as yourself, who are focused on equality, per se, rather than becoming like Christ, and who concern themselves with who isn't passing the sacrament rather than why we partake of the sacrament (to point out just a few examples), inadvertently feed into the absurdity of equality, some times to the point of pridefully presuming they, as a sheep, are in a position to determine for God and the Church which inequalities are artificial and unnecessary and should be done away with--thereby making themselves equal with God when they are far from equal.

Sure, by becoming one with Christ we essentially become equal with him. However, equality, even in this very limited sense for the distant future, is a product of achieving the goal rather than the goal, itself. We aren't striving to become like Christ for equality sake, but for the sake of love and goodness and righteousness and godliness. What should matter to us is doing what God advises, trusting him and his chosen leaders to know what is best for us personally and for his Church in moving us towards perfection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

There is a podcast that seems appropiate for this thread, found at feministmormonhousewivespodcasts, I'm unable to link, sorry.

Look at Episode #14 "Daughters in My Kingdom Chapter 1, Women in Early Christianity". It looks very interesting.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And I think it would be beautiful for my wife to be able to do the same for our daughter.

But also unorthodox; agreed? It is not "our" Church, it is Christ's or it is manmade.

[swfarnsworth]

But if you have your exaltation with your single spouse of the opposite gender, you are going to be too busy to worry about what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are doing on a different planet with their hundreds of sealed wives, or what some Adam and Steve might be doing together as potentially-sealed Celestial partners on their own created worlds. Unless you believe in literal spirit babies, and that it literally takes resurrected woman parts to create one, then there is not much of a theological difference.

I believe that both a male and female celestial being are absolutely required for spirit offspring to be created, though I make no assumption as to how that might work. So yes, the theological difference would be insane. If this were not so, homosexuality would never have been an issue during any dispensation, and it is the reason that it, unlike much of the Law of Moses, is still forbidden in this dispensation.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

If this is true then the women should be allowed to exercise their priesthood authority outside the temple so that they may act as responsible priesthood holders and go to another ward members home and bless any member of that family whether it be for sickness, comfort, insight, or whatever.

Honestly, I don't think it will happen. The brethren must exercise absolute control over the entire functionality of the church. The church doesn't need women to tell it how to do its job.

[The Nehor]

If this is true then the women should be allowed to exercise their priesthood authority outside the temple so that they may act as responsible priesthood holders and go to another ward members home and bless any member of that family whether it be for sickness, comfort, insight, or whatever.

Honestly, I don't think it will happen. The brethren must exercise absolute control over the entire functionality of the church. The church doesn't need women to tell it how to do its job.

This assumes of course that there is no God in the equation. He is conspicuously absent from your discussion of Church leadership. Hmmmmmmm........

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If this is true then the women should be allowed to exercise their priesthood authority outside the temple so that they may act as responsible priesthood holders and go to another ward members home and bless any member of that family whether it be for sickness, comfort, insight, or whatever.

Honestly, I don't think it will happen. The brethren must exercise absolute control over the entire functionality of the church. The church doesn't need women to tell it how to do its job.

You cannot even entertain the idea they do what they do because there is no scriptural exception to whom have held the Priesthood in every scriptural age?

[swfarnsworth]

swfarnsworth:

I think it's perfectly fine for fathers to baptize, and each individual circumstance will dictate the importance of that event in the family's life. It's the institutional prohibition against women taking part that is the problem, not the individual choices.

If there was any way that my mother could have baptized me at the time, I would have asked her to do it. In retrospect, I'm glad that my dad did it because it was part of his "job" as my "spiritual mentor" (for lack of better words), something that I was not old enough to appreciate at the time but is now as meaningful to me as was all the nurturing that my mother did for me when I was a small child.

I would not be opposed to women receiving the priesthood if there was a revelation on the topic. I'm not even opposed to it now, but the effect this would have on the roles of men and women in the family (as mothers and fathers) is cause enough to make me more than hesitant to declare that the brethren are acting without inspiration/for their own interests on this issue.

Can you imagine a 12 yr. old boy saying nope, mom & dad, no thanks, don't want it.

Yes, it's happening in my ward right now.

[Cobalt-70]

I believe that both a male and female celestial being are absolutely required for spirit offspring to be created, though I make no assumption as to how that might work. So yes, the theological difference would be insane. If this were not so, homosexuality would never have been an issue during any dispensation, and it is the reason that it, unlike much of the Law of Moses, is still forbidden in this dispensation.

If we were to simply return to Joseph Smith's teachings, and ignore Orson Pratt and Brigham Young (whom we ignore anyway because of Adam God), we wouldn't have to explain "spirit babies" and "spirit births," because we would be teaching that spirits are uncreated. According to Joseph Smith, the spirits of humanity always existed. God (and presumably Heavenly Mother) stood amongst them, organized them by identifying their leaders, the noble and great ones, and made them his (and her) children by providing for them a plan. Two gay gods could just as easily do that as two straight gods of opposite gender.

[Calm]

The church doesn't need women to tell it how to do its job.

If that was the actual logic behind the policy, then it seems strange that "the church" has no issue with allowing half of its members to "tell it how to do its job".