Official Declaration 3

[Cobalt-70]

I'd really like to believe the last part (about two gay gods), but if that were the case, I can't imagine that God would have consigned all past gay members of the Church who honestly wanted to stay faithful to a state of life-long celibacy in the most family-centric religion in the Western World.

The big question is whether that is God, or just the church. God and the church didn't quite see eye-to-eye on the issue of blacks and the priesthood, either, but eventually the church came around, as it usually does after a period of great soul-searching.

As an individual, I am uncreated in the sense that the matter that makes up my corporeal being has always existed, and the same is true of the spirit matter that makes up my spiritual being....

Only according to Orson Pratt and Brigham Young. Joseph Smith taught otherwise: he claimed that God told him that the idea that God created the immortal spirit was false, and that actually, the spirit was coeternal with God. He noted, "Is it logical to say that a spirit is immortal and yet have a beginning? Because if a spirit of man had a beginning, it will have an end, but it does not have a beginning or end." (King Follett Sermon)

I have never heard the organization of spirits refer to God identifying the noble and great ones. Neither have I heard of God's spiritual relationship to us being a reflection of Him offering us a path to salvation. There are those spirit children who rejected the plan, who would therefore not be His spirit children, but he appears to have power over them anyway. Why? Because they are, to the best of my knowledge, His spirit children.

According to Abraham 3, God organized the intelligences and stood among them to identify their noble and great ones (v. 21-23). Among this group of intelligences were also the ones that rebelled. There is nothing in LDS scripture that says the process creating or organizing the intelligences is to require them to pass through the birth canal of a resurrected female. God's process of organizing us, and creating us in his image, continues to this day and will continue into the future.

Joseph Smith said, "The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits." (KFS)

[juliann]

Thetans have another meaning if you go deeper down the rabbit hole. You are still unwilling to address your inconsistency. You insist that women have the right to something you believe is imaginary but only that one imaginary thing. You do not care about other imaginary things. It is almost as if arguing about this imaginary thing is something you do only because you imagine it allows you to take shots at the LDS faith. Hmmmmmm......

Either you think the priesthood is real or you do not. You seem to want to dwell in a fuzzy area where you deny it but it still matters somehow and hide there by throwing out derails about how ridiculous some imaginary things are. Does the Priesthood fall in that category or not? If not, why not?

For heaven's sake, it doesn't matter if "it" is real or not. What matters is that something (call it a pink dragon, priesthood or whatever you want) is used to discriminate against a class of people. And yes, saying one group can't have or do something only because they are member of that group is discrimination. We may think it is a good kind of discrimination but discrimination it is. You are really just hijacking the thread at this point with this meaningless quibbling over words.

Buckeye, I really like the way you approach this. I think that is the only appropriate thing to do.

[Cobalt-70]

At this point, just allowing for the possibility that women can righteously desire the priesthood is a big step for most members.

As soon as the presiding quorums determined in the 1950s and 60s that the racial discrimination against blacks holding the priesthood could be changed by revelation, it was not long that the revelation actually came. Gordon B. Hinckley has already acknowledged that the gender discrimination against women could be changed by revelation. Once the word gets out, and Mormons internalize that fact, then it seems pretty natural that the revelation will come. In some ways, it would be much easier than the 1978 revelation, because unlike blacks and the priesthood, there is nothing in the canon that seems to explicitly bar women ordinations. The main difference is that our society is traditionally more tolerant of gender discrimination than it has been of racial discrimination.

[juliann]

According to Abraham 3, God organized the intelligences and stood among them to identify their noble and great ones (v. 21-23). Among this group of intelligences were also the ones that rebelled. There is nothing in LDS scripture that says the process creating or organizing the intelligences is to require them to pass through the birth canal of a resurrected female. God's process of organizing us, and creating us in his image, continues to this day and will continue into the future.

Joseph Smith said, "The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits." (KFS)

There is so little on this that appealing to a few proof texts is not going to advance a position. This is one of those areas where LDS are quite free to interpret as they may. I think physical birth is a feature of mortality. I can proof text Genesis and the description of childbirth after the fall. What is accepted across the board in Mormonism is the female aspect of godhood, however. God means male and female. The mechanics of birth are irrelevant, it is the end product that matters. There is nothing anywhere in Mormon thought that would allow the mysogynistic erasing of the female aspect of God.

[Damien the Leper]

I would say any academics with credentials will disagree.

That is a poor assumption.

[Damien the Leper]

Thetans have another meaning if you go deeper down the rabbit hole. You are still unwilling to address your inconsistency. You insist that women have the right to something you believe is imaginary but only that one imaginary thing. You do not care about other imaginary things. It is almost as if arguing about this imaginary thing is something you do only because you imagine it allows you to take shots at the LDS faith. Hmmmmmm......

Either you think the priesthood is real or you do not. You seem to want to dwell in a fuzzy area where you deny it but it still matters somehow and hide there by throwing out derails about how ridiculous some imaginary things are. Does the Priesthood fall in that category or not? If not, why not?

No, priesthood is not in the ridiculous category and I never alluded that it was. If that is how you misinterpret anything I've said then that is YOUR problem and NOT mine.

Priesthood does not belong in the ridiculous category because of its consistent important within religious tradition. Do I honestly think that priesthood is a power gifted by God? No, I don't. However, I do argue in favor of women holding the priesthood because it is part of human birth-right within the faith. Do I think that it is wrong to withhold priesthood from women? Yes, I do. Do I think the LDS church is ultimately flawed because of its anti-progressivism? No, I don't. The LDS church does what it has to in order to survive. Right now, that survival is dependent upon a white male authoritarianism. Do I like it? No...but my opinion shouldn't count because I'm no longer a believer or a member.

I'm not an anti-Mormon as some may ignorantly assume. I am critical and not just of the LDS church. I'm even more critical of Acts 29 Reformed theology than LDS. John Calvin, in my irreverent and unprofessional opinion, is a d-bag and Calvinism is a mess. I'm critical of the Assemblies of God. I'm critical of Wayman Mitchell who founded The Potter's House/The Door and his radically extreme charismaticism and scriptural delusions.

Do I take shots? You bet I do. But no faith is a victim. No one is exempt from scrutiny or criticism. Not Monson, not JS, not BY, not God, and not even me.

[swfarnsworth]

The big question is whether that is God, or just the church. God and the church didn't quite see eye-to-eye on the issue of blacks and the priesthood, either, but eventually the church came around, as it usually does after a period of great soul-searching.

You have begun with the assumption that God did not approve of the priesthood ban at any time even though there is no way for us to be sure at the present time. The priesthood ban cannot be compared to SSM because, unlike the priesthood ban, there is a well understood doctrinal incompatibility with SSM. You are the first person I have spoken to on this topic who has denied that at least one male and female being are necessary for either of them to become gods or have spirit offspring.

Only according to Orson Pratt and Brigham Young. Joseph Smith taught otherwise: he claimed that God told him that the idea that God created the immortal spirit was false, and that actually, the spirit was coeternal with God. He noted, "Is it logical to say that a spirit is immortal and yet have a beginning? Because if a spirit of man had a beginning, it will have an end, but it does not have a beginning or end." (King Follett Sermon)

According to Abraham 3, God organized the intelligences and stood among them to identify their noble and great ones (v. 21-23). Among this group of intelligences were also the ones that rebelled. There is nothing in LDS scripture that says the process creating or organizing the intelligences is to require them to pass through the birth canal of a resurrected female. God's process of organizing us, and creating us in his image, continues to this day and will continue into the future.

Joseph Smith said, "The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits." (KFS)

Instead of explaining why I don't agree with your interpretations of the verses/quotes you have cited (though I can do this later when I have time and if you are interested), I'm going to point out this paragraph of the God Loveth His Children pamphlet, which says this on the topic of the necessity of marriage:

These blessings are based on obedience to eternal principles. The importance of families is one of these principles. Heaven is organized by families, which require a man and a woman who together exercise their creative powers within the bounds the Lord has set. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this plan. Without both a husband and a wife there would be no eternal family and no opportunity to become like Heavenly Father.

Emphasis added. This is probably not the best source to be citing here, but it is certainly the most pertinent.

I have SSA, which makes a number of my ambitions impossible if I want to remain a Church member in good standing (which is the case) or achieve exaltation (also the case). However, I have not resorted to reinterpreting doctrine to create room for a desire that is clearly incompatible with exaltation.

Edited October 3, 2012 by swfarnsworth

[Cobalt-70]

What is accepted across the board in Mormonism is the female aspect of godhood, however. God means male and female. The mechanics of birth are irrelevant, it is the end product that matters. There is nothing anywhere in Mormon thought that would allow the mysogynistic erasing of the female aspect of God.

I disagree. God means male. Goddess mean female. In Mormonism, there is no "female aspect" of God. Rather, there is a female Goddess, and a male God. Separate and distinct. Then, of course, there is the male Son and the male/female/androgynous (?) Holy Spirit.

We in the LDS Church already do a pretty good job of "erasing" the Heavenly Mother. We can't pray to her. We can't worship her. We can't even discuss her in church. What would really change if the Father's spouse happened to be a man?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For heaven's sake, it doesn't matter if "it" is real or not. What matters is that something (call it a pink dragon, priesthood or whatever you want) is used to discriminate against a class of people. And yes, saying one group can't have or do something only because they are member of that group is discrimination. We may think it is a good kind of discrimination but discrimination it is. You are really just hijacking the thread at this point with this meaningless quibbling over words.

Buckeye, I really like the way you approach this. I think that is the only appropriate thing to do.

"Class of individuals"...this assumes one is better than the other. There is no historical context for women being ordained to the Priesthood (other than a comment calling someone a "Priestess"). Nothing from Gen 1 to the Articles of Faith. Also even if you view it as "discrimination"...there have always been limits.

[Cobalt-70]

You have begun with the assumption that God did not approve of the priesthood ban at any time even though there is no way for us to be sure at the present time. The priesthood ban cannot be compared to SSM because, unlike the priesthood ban, there is a well understood doctrinal incompatibility with SSM. You are the first person I have spoken to on this topic who has denied that at least one male and female being are necessary for either of them to become gods or have spirit offspring.

There is a cultural incompatibility, and a policy incompatibility, but I don't see the doctrinal incompatibility. Quite to the contrary, there are scriptures that go the other way: "It is not good for man to be alone." "And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." (D&C 130:2)

Instead of explaining why I don't agree with your interpretations of the verses/quotes you have cited (though I can do this later when I have time and if you are interested), I'm going to point out this paragraph of the God Loveth His Children pamphlet, which says this on the topic of the necessity of marriage:

...

Emphasis added. This is probably not the best source to be citing here, but it is certainly the most pertinent.

Church pamphlets change, and eventually go out of print. They are a reflection of current church policy, not canonized doctrine. Doctrinally, the only requirement for exaltation is to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. In the 19th century, they used to seal men to men. True, these men were usually also sealed to their wives, and these homogendered sealings did not represent a marital relationship. But marriage and sealing were always something different. Sealing, whether between man and woman or man and man, creates eternal kinship within the Celestial family, whereas marriage only creates temporal kinship.

Anyone from the 19th century would probably have told you that it is far better in the eternities for a man to be sealed to a man, than to be married to a woman without sealing. (Of course, they would believe that neither of them were destined for the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom, because neither of them were polygamists.)

Edited October 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Arbiter]

" 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?

Boredom.

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

Acceptance.

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

Now it's getting harder. I honestly don't know. I guess it would be the end of Relief Society.

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

I just don't think there's much to discuss. If a Prophet says it's time, the Church body will comply. Maybe, just coming off the polygamy discussion, with people prepared to fight for it to the bitter end because they believe it was a revelation from God no matter how many outstanding reasons there were, and are, to believe it couldn't have been, I have a hard time believing anybody would bat an eyelash if women get the priesthood.

For all their reputation to the contrary, Mormon men are among the least sexist guys in modern day America. Probably in the world. A Mormon man is who you want your daughter to marry. He's going to be head and shoulders above even the best men elsewhere. I don't know if you thought they'd object, and I don't know if I'm completely off base about how the Church at large would receive such an announcement either. I just can't see much actual objection to such a thing, if it were to happen.

Me, I was always glad I didn't have to hold the priesthood. I've got enough to do. They can have it.

[Damien the Leper]

You deserve the help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not from you I don't. Sell your crap to someone willing to buy it.

[Cobalt-70]

For all their reputation to the contrary, Mormon men are among the least sexist guys in modern day America. Probably in the world. A Mormon man is who you want your daughter to marry. He's going to be head and shoulders above even the best men elsewhere. I don't know if you thought they'd object, and I don't know if I'm completely off base about how the Church at large would receive such an announcement either. I just can't see much actual objection to such a thing, if it were to happen.

Patriarchy doesn't usually have anything to do with sexism. Both men and women perpetuate the patriarchy, and usually not even on purpose. But patriarchy is so ingrained in our culture that it is hard to root out. Patriarchy is much more insidious than ethnocentrism. Therefore, I think that a lot of people, both men and women, would be shocked if the LDS Church decided to entrust women with real authority in the church. At first, women general authorities would not be trusted, because for so long we have associated masculinity with power, and we don't know what feminine priesthood power looks like.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[swfarnsworth]

At first, women general authorities would not be trusted, because for so long we have associated masculinity with power.

That's rather cynical, don't you think? The fact that having a woman in the Quorum of the Twelve would be new to everyone in the Church does not mean that Church members would go as far as to not trust her.

[wenglund]

Not from you I don't. Sell your crap to someone willing to buy it.

Even projective closed minds are deserving of help, if not more deserving.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 4, 2012 by wenglund

[Saints Alive]

That's rather cynical, don't you think? The fact that having a woman in the Quorum of the Twelve would be new to everyone in the Church does not mean that Church members would go as far as to not trust her.

I honestly don't think a women would be added to the Quorum of the Twelve independently as the men are now. If women were to be given "The Priesthood" or just a priesthood, I think what we would see is couples occupying the position. Sort of an Apostle A and Apostle B sort of thing. I don't know what title might be used to distinguish between the male and female apostle but given the emphasis on family I could see this type of arrangement as both positive and beneficial. It could work at almost every level. (not sure how it would work in YM/YW though)

[wenglund]

For heaven's sake, it doesn't matter if "it" is real or not.

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in whether the discrimination is meaningful and worthy of consideration or not. If a toy manufacturer creates and markets fairy dust exclusively for girls, why should I as a man care? (Hint: I wouldn't)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buckeye]

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in whether the discrimination is meaningful and worthy of consideration or not. If a toy manufacturer creates and markets fairy dust exclusively for girls, why should I as a man care? (Hint: I wouldn't)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's take a hypothetical. Say you have twins in 2nd grade. One is a girl, the other a boy. The teacher gives an assignment for the boys to write to Santa Claus, but the girls have to write to their Senator. The teacher's justification is that "Santa doesn't listen to girls so why should they write to him." Seriously, you would not have a problem with this?

[wenglund]

Let's take a hypothetical. Say you have twins in 2nd grade. One is a girl, the other a boy. The teacher gives an assignment for the boys to write to Santa Claus, but the girls have to write to their Senator. The teacher's justification is that "Santa doesn't listen to girls so why should they write to him." Seriously, you would not have a problem with this?

I will answer your poor analogy after you answer my good analogy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Even projective closed minds are deserving of help, if not more deserving.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps you should adhere to your own advice. Take care, Wade.

[swfarnsworth]

I honestly don't think a women would be added to the Quorum of the Twelve independently as the men are now. If women were to be given "The Priesthood" or just a priesthood, I think what we would see is couples occupying the position. Sort of an Apostle A and Apostle B sort of thing. I don't know what title might be used to distinguish between the male and female apostle but given the emphasis on family I could see this type of arrangement as both positive and beneficial. It could work at almost every level. (not sure how it would work in YM/YW though)

Then homosexuals would not be able to hold any leadership callings at all. I condemn groups like Affirmation as being heretical (I've been wanting to use that word in a discussion about Mormonism for years), but even I would complain if there was no way for faithful members with SSA to serve in any leadership positions pertaining to their respective age/gender.

Edited October 4, 2012 by swfarnsworth

[Saints Alive]

Then homosexuals would not be able to hold any leadership callings at all. I condemn groups like Affirmation as being heretical (I've been wanting to use that word in a discussion about Mormonism for years), but even I would complain if there was no way for faithful members with SSA to serve in any leadership positions pertaining to their respective age/gender.

I'm sure there could still be position that don't require marriage just as there are now. Some positions will always be off limits to people with SSA anyway... Bishop for example.

[swfarnsworth]

I'm sure there could still be positions that don't require marriage just as there are now. Some positions will always be off limits to people with SSA anyway... Bishop for example.

First of all, congratulations on your 666th post.

I heard about a single man with SSA being called as a bishop, I think during that NBC documentary from a few weeks ago, if that was the station it was on. The fact that he was intentionally and permanently single may have had something to do with that.

Does anyone know what the reasoning is behind not allowing single bishops? I've been assuming that it's because they don't want a bishop to be looking for a spouse while trying to serve as bishop, because that would result in an incredibly overworked bishop who is in an awkward position to date members of his own ward.

At the same time, being immune from being called as a bishop isn't the worst place to be. Just saying.

[Cobalt-70]

That's rather cynical, don't you think? The fact that having a woman in the Quorum of the Twelve would be new to everyone in the Church does not mean that Church members would go as far as to not trust her.

They will love her and laud her womanly virtues, and will accept her without reservation to the extent that she stays within traditional feminine submissive roles. But as soon as she begins to exercise real power, such as by stating something over the pulpit that might be a little different than what some prior male general authority has said, or which constitutions revelation from God, there will be many in the church who will be suspicious. Nobody alive today has seen a Mormon woman exercise such power within the church, and it is natural for people to be suspicious of the unknown.

[Cobalt-70]

I honestly don't think a women would be added to the Quorum of the Twelve independently as the men are now. If women were to be given "The Priesthood" or just a priesthood, I think what we would see is couples occupying the position. Sort of an Apostle A and Apostle B sort of thing. I don't know what title might be used to distinguish between the male and female apostle but given the emphasis on family I could see this type of arrangement as both positive and beneficial. It could work at almost every level. (not sure how it would work in YM/YW though)

I don't think that model is workable, because it disregards the contributions that can be made by single people within the church. Plus, for lifetime callings such as the Apostleship or Presidency, what happens when either the husband or the wife as such an apostolic pair dies?