The "Ordain Women" Website

[why me]

It is already been taught so I don't see it as a big deal.

http://www.lds.org/e...g=spa&clang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...father?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/l...-1-13-5,00.html

https://www.lds.org/...ly-proclamation

There are 235 'hits' when using the lds.org search function for "heavenly parents", probably many are duplicates, but it seems enough to me to confirm that there is nothing groundbreaking in switching to "heavenly parents" in the YW theme.

Poor mercy....I would love to see her face when she reads this. I have to wonder if the women in charge of the website or facebook page know what they are talking about.

[why me]

Of course we believe that we have a Heavenly Mother (and every young woman should know that already), but that is the complete extent of our doctrine regarding Her-that She exists. Given that, i don't personally see a reason to turn every reference to our Father in Heaven, or God, plural. I don't see what it will accomplish, other than questions we can't answer.

I think that we go by the lord's prayer as an example of how to pray. The women involved in attempting to change the standard way the lds church teaches to pray need to change the bible verse.

[Calm]

It is the "women in pants" thing again....it is not so prominent that it is part of the culture, but it is part of the doctrine/policy (in the case of pants, there is no actual rule against it as was stated in the public announcement).

[mercyngrace]

Poor mercy....I would love to see her face when she reads this. I have to wonder if the women in charge of the website or facebook page know what they are talking about.

Why "poor mercy"? I'm the one who gave Cal the rep point for posting this.

And if you'd read the thread, you'd see that I pointed out the "Heavenly Parents" reference in the Proclamation on Family before Cal did as well as the reference to Heavenly Mother in our hymnal.

[Calm]

I think that we go by the lord's prayer as an example of how to pray. The women involved in attempting to change the standard way the lds church teaches to pray need to change the bible verse.

Don't see that. They are trying to change a YW's theme to be in accord with what has been actually taught exactly that way (see my quotes). Unless you can demonstrate that they are intending to extend it to prayer itself, I think that is a leap (not that some wouldn't see it that way, but whether that is the actual intent is different).

[jana at jade house]

I started to read through the website information. By the time I hit the third inaccuracy or cringe making assertion ( as I understand and practice the Gospel) I quit. The day that men can bear children is the day I will start feeling like I am unequal and missing some thing. Until then I am unconvinced I need to have the priesthood to be fulfilled. I don't wanna be the same as men. These folks do not speak for me at all.

[bluebell]

I think that we go by the lord's prayer as an example of how to pray. The women involved in attempting to change the standard way the lds church teaches to pray need to change the bible verse.

Just to clarify, the change these women are talking about has nothing to do with praying.

They want a change to the YW theme which is recited in unison each Sunday during opening exercises.

[Stone holm]

Guess I don't understand the right wing reaction to some of this stuff if the women want to have a reference to parents, which is clearly consistent with our doctrine and is also consistent with the lip service we give to the appropriate respect we should give to our Eternal companions and is consistent with the proclamation on families why shouldn't they be accommodated are we males that insecure in our self understanding that we have to attack them in reaction? And if women want to more thoroughly cover their legs and wear modest pantsuits to Church, what on Earth is the problem. When we react to that in the way some have it really does make us look like a bunch of sexists. This is almost Easter are we forgetting that the first person that Christ appeared to after the Resurrection was a woman and it was her who first bore witness to the resurrection to the Apostles? My gosh get a grip.

[Pahoran]

You know he can't do that without violating guidelines about discussing Temple Endowments.

I know no such thing. If there was "social pressure" to any degree, and especially if it was "massive," then it was happening outside of the Temple and not in the course of the ceremony. That you have to appeal to Temple confidentiality is an admission of failure.

Of course such occurred in the 1980's

Call for references, please. What form did this "massive social pressure" take? Sit ins? Love ins? Marches? Choruses of "We Shall Overcome" in General Conference? Opinionated write-ups by ill-informed journalists in local rags?

just ask an older member next time you are in the Celestial room.

Epic fail.

FYI, I am an "older member," having received my own Endowment in nineteen hundred and seventy-seven.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

I know no such thing. If there was "social pressure" to any degree, and especially if it was "massive," then it was happening outside of the Temple and not in the course of the ceremony. That you have to appeal to Temple confidentiality is an admission of failure.

Call for references, please. What form did this "massive social pressure" take? Sit ins? Love ins? Marches? Choruses of "We Shall Overcome" in General Conference? Opinionated write-ups by ill-informed journalists in local rags?

Epic fail.

FYI, I am an "older member," having received my own Endowment in nineteen hundred and seventy-seven.

Regards,

Pahoran

Good then you can remember the regional conferences with people marching around with signs, and airplanes flying overhead with protest banners, etc.

[why me]

Just to clarify, the change these women are talking about has nothing to do with praying.

They want a change to the YW theme which is recited in unison each Sunday during opening exercises.

I have this feeling that it will never end. For example, why only address heavenly father? Why not address both parents? Why not heavenly mother in prayer? I believe that the people behind this want to disrupt the church from within and they will never be satisfied until the lds church becomes like the CoC---somewhat marginalized and compared to another protestant sect.

[why me]

I did a random poll with the women in the branch that I was attending today. It was an astounding no to the priesthood. Most had a look of disbelief. And I do believe that some would leave the church if lds women received the priesthood, if seen to be from outside pressure.

[Brenda]

I would love to have my wife be able to assist me in adminstering to our children.

She may not have her hands on their heads, but she ministers to your children every day. Probably more than you do.

[why me]

She may not have her hands on their heads, but she ministers to your children every day. Probably more than you do.

I think that in the lds church women play an extremely important role, especially in the family. But also in the church. Where would the lds church be without Relief Society? Or without the women who are teachers in sunday school and givers of talks in sacrament meeting? Women play an extremely active role in educating the members in the gospel. And they play an extremely important role in educating their own children.

Listening to Edward Kimball talk about his mom and dad, I had the feeling that Camilla Kimball was the priesthood holder in the home. She was there for him, helping him through his own faith crisis and educating him about gospel matters and answering his questions about the gospel. She had a very important position in the kimball family and was the backbone of the family.

[Pahoran]

Good then you can remember the regional conferences with people marching around with signs, and airplanes flying overhead with protest banners, etc.

No, I don't remember any such thing. So, for the third time (although only the second for you):

CALL FOR REFERENCES, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Brenda]

After listening to a number of podcasts by those who feel discontent about women's roles in the Church, I sense a theme. It seems to express a ME attitude.

They seem to say that it doesn't matter that someone is receiving an ordinance, only that SHE cannot administer it. That it does not matter that there is a prayer, only that SHE isn't saying it. And that it only matters who is presiding, or leading, or giving counsel, when it isn't a woman.

When did the ordinance, or the prayer itself become unimportant? When did it become all about the ones who get to, or don't get to, be the hands or voice?

Where is the profound gratitude that we have these saving ordinances, and they are available to ALL who accept them?

I remember what Gordon Hinckley's dad wrote to him on his mission -- Forget yourself, and get to work. Wise words.

[Stone holm]

No, I don't remember any such thing. So, for the third time (although only the second for you):

CALL FOR REFERENCES, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

Sorry I didn't take photographs when I attended the Regional Conferences in Ann Arbor and St. Louis, but will see if there is something archived on the Internet.

[Senator]

She may not have her hands on their heads, but she ministers to your children every day. Probably more than you do.

I was hoping that the obvious would not need to be stated.

I was speaking specifically to administering to the sick with the laying on of hands.

[Calm]

Good then you can remember the regional conferences with people marching around with signs, and airplanes flying overhead with protest banners, etc.

CFR please

[Calm]

She may not have her hands on their heads, but she ministers to your children every day. Probably more than you do.

There is no reason she can't have her hands on their heads in blessings as well. As long as it is understood that her part is not of the priesthood.

"The Lord has given us directions in matters of this kind; we are to call in the elders, and they are to anoint with oil on the head and bless by the laying on of hands. The Church teaches that a woman may lay on hands upon the head of a sick child and ask the Lord to bless it, in the case when those holding the priesthood cannot be present.

A man might under such conditions invite his wife to lay on hands with him in blessing their sick child. This would be merely to exercise her faith and not be, cause of any inherent right to lay on hands. A woman would have no authority to anoint or seal a blessing, and where elders can be called in, that would be the proper way to have an administration performed. (Doctrines of Salvation)

And President Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting from his father, said:

"Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety."

When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.)

Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Sorry I didn't take photographs when I attended the Regional Conferences in Ann Arbor and St. Louis, but will see if there is something archived on the Internet.

From memory at least, what were the specifics that were being protested? Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[MorningStar]

When I was little and my dad was starting to become inactive, I screaming due to an ear infection and my mom asked him to give me a blessing. He said he didn't believe in that and she said, "I have the faith! You can give the blessing." So he gave me a blessing and she said I stopped crying immediately.

[Brenda]

I was hoping that the obvious would not need to be stated.

I was speaking specifically to administering to the sick with the laying on of hands.

Yes, I realize that. Why does it matter whose hands are on their head? It's not about her. It's not about you. It's about the miracle of faith, and the power of God to heal. Just as it's not about who blesses or passes the sacrament. It's about the ordinance and how it affects the lives of those who receive it.

Shouldn't we stop focusing on ourselves and instead focus on the blessings?

[Pahoran]

Sorry I didn't take photographs when I attended the Regional Conferences in Ann Arbor and St. Louis, but will see if there is something archived on the Internet.

Well, if the "pressure" was "massive," one supposes that at least some newspapers might have noticed.

And if any of the stuff you're describing happened at all, then there was no need to appeal to Temple confidentiality, would there?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

Yes, I realize that. Why does it matter whose hands are on their head? It's not about her. It's not about you. It's about the miracle of faith, and the power of God to heal. Just as it's not about who blesses or passes the sacrament. It's about the ordinance and how it affects the lives of those who receive it.

Shouldn't we stop focusing on ourselves and instead focus on the blessings?

What if you're a single mother and don't want to call your home teacher, bishop, neighbor everytime your child needs a blessing. The women use to annoint other sisters and give blessings. This changed when it was decided that you didn't need to annoint the specfic area that was a problem and changed to annointing the head for everything. That's when they no longer needed women to annoint other women. I recently learned about this... pretty interesting and explains alot.