The "Ordain Women" Website

[Stone holm]

What would be the difference between the CoC and the lds church? It would seem that the CoC got it right before the lds church did.

Am I missing something here, you think if the Church were to ordain women, that would make us the same as the CoC? And what difference does it make whether we make a change before or after some other organization? Obviously, a lot of Churches made changes extending the Priesthood to the the Africans before we did, that didn't make the Church any less the true Church.

[Stone holm]

Clearly we are talking past each other here.

The question at issue is not whether feminists have tried to censor (by way of "protest" ) the Church's public voice over such issues as the ERA; we all know that those who advance leftist political causes always try to silence those they oppose; that is a given. The question is whether the changes to the Temple Endowment ceremony in 1995 were made in response to "massive social pressure."

Note that the ERA failed ratification in 1982. The dates don't match. Sorry.

Also, just IMHO, the idiotic assumption that the Church only ever changes anything in response to "massive social pressure" is a symptom of absolutely terminal cynicism. I've also noticed that those who make this assumption will inevitably support it by seeing "massive social pressure" after the event that was trivial, if not outright invisible, before.

Regards,

Pahoran

Fail to follow the logic here. There have been a series of changes to the endowment, some in 81, some much later -- but even if that weren't the case, the fact that there is a lag time between cultural pressure for change and the change doesn't mean that the conversation going on in Society has no impact. It is clear for example that David O. McKay was well aware of the building pressure in society to extend the Priesthood and that it was having an impact even though the change did not fully occur until President Kimball's term (there were chippings away at the ban even before then.)

[Pahoran]

Fail to follow the logic here. There have been a series of changes to the endowment, some in 81, some much later -- but even if that weren't the case, the fact that there is a lag time between cultural pressure for change and the change doesn't mean that the conversation going on in Society has no impact. It is clear for example that David O. McKay was well aware of the building pressure in society to extend the Priesthood and that it was having an impact even though the change did not fully occur until President Kimball's term (there were chippings away at the ban even before then.)

So you are basically saying that if there's no evidence of any correlation between "social pressure" and some change or other, then we should just take it on faith that the change was forced on us by some pressure or other.

Your faith in an undemonstratable chain of cause and effect is touching.

So then, I take it that you have no references to offer in support of the claim that the changes to the Endowment in 1995 were caused by "massive social pressure?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 25, 2013 by Pahoran

[Stone holm]

So you are basically saying that if there's no evidence of any correlation between "social pressure" and some change or other, then we should just take it on faith that the change was forced on us by some pressure or other.

Your faith in an undemonstratable chain of cause and effect is touching.

So then, I take it that you have no references to offer in support of the claim that the changes to the Endowment in 1995 were caused by "massive social pressure?"

Regards,

Pahoran

I flipped back several pages to see if I ever used the word "forced" or the phrase "massive social pressure" -- didn't see where I used that word or phrases. On the flip side, however, do you really believe that the First Presidency is so bubble-wrapped that it just out of sheer coincidence decides to make changes which are in line with cultural changes? I also am not sure that I made reference to the changes which occurred in 1995, I do believe that I would have had the changes back in the 1980s more in mind -- but whatever.

[rongo]

Am I missing something here, you think if the Church were to ordain women, that would make us the same as the CoC? And what difference does it make whether we make a change before or after some other organization? Obviously, a lot of Churches made changes extending the Priesthood to the the Africans before we did, that didn't make the Church any less the true Church.

Other than the Catholic and LDS churches (and maybe New Apostolic), what other churches view priesthood as needing to be transmitted by the laying on of hands, with emphasis placed on direct lineal ascent from Jesus to the present? In other words, I think your statement that "a lot of Churches made changes extending the Priesthood to the the Africans before we did" needs to be qualified and contextualized. Apples and oranges when what you have in mind is a priesthood of all believers and simply a feeling of being called.

I am genuinely interested in whether your claim can be documented. What instances are there of pre-1978 non-LDS churches giving ordinance-administering authority to blacks (doubtless there are some ---- I just want to know what they are). Ditto for black pastors over mixed or predominantly white congregations. How many of *those* are there, even today in 2013?

Friendly CFR.

[Stone holm]

Other than the Catholic and LDS churches (and maybe New Apostolic), what other churches view priesthood as needing to be transmitted by the laying on of hands, with emphasis placed on direct lineal ascent from Jesus to the present? In other words, I think your statement that "a lot of Churches made changes extending the Priesthood to the the Africans before we did" needs to be qualified and contextualized. Apples and oranges when what you have in mind is a priesthood of all believers and simply a feeling of being called.

I am genuinely interested in whether your claim can be documented. What instances are there of pre-1978 non-LDS churches giving ordinance-administering authority to blacks (doubtless there are some ---- I just want to know what they are). Ditto for black pastors over mixed or predominantly white congregations. How many of *those* are there, even today in 2013?

Friendly CFR.

Good point, most Protestant churches do not believe in a Priesthood. In a sense you could argue that nobody was ordaining anyone, since we were the only ones with authority. But truly, does it really matter to the truthfulness of the Church whether we are the first or the last to implement a change because of a cultural shift or for some totally unrelated reason that just happens to bring us into alignment with a cultural shift? I don't think so, do you?

[Calm]

Other than the Catholic and LDS churches (and maybe New Apostolic), what other churches view priesthood as needing to be transmitted by the laying on of hands, with emphasis placed on direct lineal ascent from Jesus to the present? In other words, I think your statement that "a lot of Churches made changes extending the Priesthood to the the Africans before we did" needs to be qualified and contextualized. Apples and oranges when what you have in mind is a priesthood of all believers and simply a feeling of being called.

I am genuinely interested in whether your claim can be documented. What instances are there of pre-1978 non-LDS churches giving ordinance-administering authority to blacks (doubtless there are some ---- I just want to know what they are). Ditto for black pastors over mixed or predominantly white congregations. How many of *those* are there, even today in 2013?

Friendly CFR.

http://en.wikipedia....ugustine_Tolton

Don't forget the Orthodox.

http://orthodoxhisto...est-in-america/

First black pastor of a white congregation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Haynes

Percentage of current mixed race congregations:

In a recent national study, Michael Emerson and his colleagues found that mixed race congregations, those having no more than 80 percent of any one racial group in their membership, represent 8 percent of American congregations.

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cong/articles_multiracialcongs.html Edited March 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

The friendly CFR is still in force.

Did the Catholic Church (comparable view of priesthood) ordain blacks before 1978? What about in Africa?

I would be shocked if they didn't, but then, what if they didn't?

[rongo]

http://en.wikipedia....ugustine_Tolton

Don't forget the Orthodox.

http://orthodoxhisto...est-in-america/

First black pastor of a white congregation:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Lemuel_Haynes

Percentage of current mixed race congregations:

http://hirr.hartsem....acialcongs.html

Thank you!

[Stone holm]

The friendly CFR is still in force.

Did the Catholic Church (comparable view of priesthood) ordain blacks before 1978? What about in Africa?

I would be shocked if they didn't, but then, what if they didn't?

Wasn't that her first wikipedia cite? The Catholics also have a black order of religious, not sure when that was formed, however. Do we get academic censure for using wikipedia cites?

[Calm]

Wasn't that her first wikipedia cite?

He posted at the same time.

wiki is okay for some stuff...if I was basing an argument on it, I would be more careful, but for just something like this if he wants more academic rigour he can look stuff up for himself,

[Stone holm]

Wasn't that her first wikipedia cite? The Catholics also have a black order of religious, not sure when that was formed, however. Do we get academic censure for using wikipedia cites?

Have to correct that they formed an interacial order to assist the blacks in America known as the Josephites.

[why me]

Am I missing something here, you think if the Church were to ordain women, that would make us the same as the CoC? And what difference does it make whether we make a change before or after some other organization? Obviously, a lot of Churches made changes extending the Priesthood to the the Africans before we did, that didn't make the Church any less the true Church.

We are not talking about any other church but of an off shoot of the lds church. And that does make a difference. If one goes to the CoC site and sees who has the priesthood and the callings in the leadership as women are now apostles etc, I can safely say that the women behind the ordaining women site wish the lds church to resemble the CoC. And the lds church would need to also have women as apostles, seventies, members of the first presidency, etc.

I do think that the lds church would cease to function as it now does. It would mean a revolutionary change inside the church.

Edited March 25, 2013 by why me

[Stone holm]

He posted at the same time.

wiki is okay for some stuff...if I was basing an argument on it, I would be more careful, but for just something like this if he wants more academic rigour he can look stuff up for himself,

So Calmoriah, do you think that the Church operates in a pressureless social vacuum?

[Stone holm]

We are not talking about any other church but of an off shoot of the lds church. And that does make a difference. If one goes to CoC site and sees who has the priesthood and the callings in the leadership as women are now apostles etc, I can safely say that the women behind the ordaining women site wish the lds church to resemble the CoC. And the lds church would need to also have women as apostles, seventies, members of the first presidency, etc.

I do think that the lds church would cease to function as it now does. It would mean a revolutionary change inside the church.

Although I doubt that the change would be implemented like it was for the Africans (I would expect it to be gradual), I don't see how it could possibly be considered "revolutionary" or how it could possibly be considered as making us like the CoC? Would you like to explain what would be so revolutionary about it? What Scriptures would need to be ignored or reinterpreted? How would it affect the structure of how we view the hereafter?

[Calm]

So Calmoriah, do you think that the Church operates in a pressureless social vacuum?

Of course not. The pressure is always there. Whether or not the leaders decide to respond to it and how and what parts varies depending on the issue, imo.

[why me]

Although I doubt that the change would be implemented like it was for the Africans (I would expect it to be gradual), I don't see how it could possibly be considered "revolutionary" or how it could possibly be considered as making us like the CoC? Would you like to explain what would be so revolutionary about it? What Scriptures would need to be ignored or reinterpreted? How would it affect the structure of how we view the hereafter?

One just needs to see the CoC and how they now operate. it would be revolutionary in a sense that the change would be a radical change from what the church is now. Of course, it would need to be for all women and girls of age. It could not be gradual. And many women would leave the church because of it. Many do not want the priesthood and would consider it a sacrilege to have such a change in the church.

Edited March 25, 2013 by why me

[alter idem]

I don't see this push for ordaining women to the priesthood ending well for those who become too passionately wed to this idea. The church is and has always been a Patriarchal organization. It also is led, not by campaigning and lobbying for change from the people up to the leadership, but rather by a Prophet who receives revelation from God--from the top down.

I also think they view priesthood office in terms of worldy power--not as a way to serve others, but as a way to hold positions they view as powerful in the church organization. Because of that, I'm uncertain of their motivations for wanting to be ordained to priesthood offices.

[Stone holm]

One just needs to see the CoC and how they now operate. it would be revolutionary in a sense that the change would be a radical change from what the church is now. Of course, it would need to be for all women and girls of age. It could not be gradual. And many women would leave the church because of it. Many do not want the priesthood and would consider it a sacrilege to have such a change in the church.

The CoC isn't much at all like us, and the ordaining of women, if and when it happens, won't make us like them. Oh it might very well be implemented gradually by say calling couples instead of just men, or by limiting it to certain functions, who knows. I really doubt many women would apostasize over it, but I do think it would cause some women to come back into the Church and it might cause some women to soften their hearts with regards to the Church if it wasn't viewed as quite as sexist as it is now or that the gender stereotyping wasn't quite so obvious. But such is pure speculation on both our parts.

[Stone holm]

I don't see this push for ordaining women to the priesthood ending well for those who become too passionately wed to this idea. The church is and has always been a Patriarchal organization. It also is led, not by campaigning and lobbying for change from the people up to the leadership, but rather by a Prophet who receives revelation from God--from the top down.

I also think they view priesthood office in terms of worldy power--not as a way to serve others, but as a way to hold positions they view as powerful in the church organization. Because of that, I'm uncertain of their motivations for wanting to be ordained to priesthood offices.

Other than the historical argument which I certainly agree with, I was always of the opinion that Prophets are constantly taking the questions and concerns of the people they serve before The Lord, not just walking around blindly indifferent to those questions expecting The Lord to answer un asked questions. Did I miss a memo or something which changed the role of the Prophet to something other than a servant.

[Pahoran]

I flipped back several pages to see if I ever used the word "forced" or the phrase "massive social pressure" -- didn't see where I used that word or phrases.

Then permit me to remind you.

First there was this:

other examples of the church changing in response to social pressure - the temple ceremony/language has been changed multiple times in response to massive social pressure,

In response to which, I wrote:

CFR, please.

Permit me to anticipate the usual two-step: I know all about the changes to the Temple ordinances. Merely waving a hand at those changes will not support your argument. Please substantiate your claim of "massive social pressure."

You then chimed in in support of "Mayan Elephant."

On the flip side, however, do you really believe that the First Presidency is so bubble-wrapped that it just out of sheer coincidence decides to make changes which are in line with cultural changes? I also am not sure that I made reference to the changes which occurred in 1995, I do believe that I would have had the changes back in the 1980s more in mind -- but whatever.

Okay. When you try to shift the burden of proof, that is a clear admission that you are unable to meet it.

It is also clear to me that, among the people agitating for the ordination of women (because of course, the Church of Jesus Christ desperately needs to enjoy the growth and success presently experienced by the CofC, the CofE and various other liberal Protestant groups) the number who are actually faithful Latter-day Saints, and who actually value the Priesthood for its divine origin, is a nice round figure.

The only logical position for the agitators to take is that the Priesthood is a merely social construct.

Regards,

Pahoran

[alter idem]

Other than the historical argument which I certainly agree with, I was always of the opinion that Prophets are constantly taking the questions and concerns of the people they serve before The Lord, not just walking around blindly indifferent to those questions expecting The Lord to answer un asked questions. Did I miss a memo or something which changed the role of the Prophet to something other than a servant.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that I was suggesting the Prophet doesn't listen to his counselors and consider the views of others. What you seemed to miss was my point that the Prophet's revelations don't come because he's been pressured by others to 'change' in order to make the church more people friendly or socially acceptable--in other words, less 'peculiar'. Personally, I don't want to belong to a church that makes changes based on public pressure, not divine inspiration.

As members of a church who believe in a Prophet who receives revelation for the church, maybe these people who want changes, ought to be petitioning the Lord for change, not petitioning the Prophet and the church. This way, the Lord can let the Prophet know if this is his will.

[Stone holm]

Then permit me to remind you.

First there was this:

In response to which, I wrote:

You then chimed in in support of "Mayan Elephant."

Okay. When you try to shift the burden of proof, that is a clear admission that you are unable to meet it.

It is also clear to me that, among the people agitating for the ordination of women (because of course, the Church of Jesus Christ desperately needs to enjoy the growth and success presently experienced by the CofC, the CofE and various other liberal Protestant groups) the number who are actually faithful Latter-day Saints, and who actually value the Priesthood for its divine origin, is a nice round figure.

The only logical position for the agitators to take is that the Priesthood is a merely social construct.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yeah, I flipped back some more and I never used those words. My position has always been that cultural change usually precedes a change in Church policy, and recognition that there has been cultural change and that the Church does not remain oblivious to such changes. There may, however, been some miscommunication because I didn't pay attention to the years that may have been floating around. There were substantial changes in the 1980's I believe as well. I believe it is a completely untenable position that the Church leaders are not aware of criticism of the Church on such issues. I also do not believe that the Priesthood is a mere social construct if I did we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Nor do I believe it is appropriate to question one's testimony just because they may differ with you when speculating about the future.

[Calm]

I believe it is a completely untenable position that the Church leaders are not aware of criticism of the Church on such issues.

I don't believe anyone here is suggesting this. I believe Pahoran's position is more of they are aware of the criticism, but they don't let it affect their decisions....at least not the type of criticism from protestors and such.

[Stone holm]

I don't believe anyone here is suggesting this. I believe Pahoran's position is more of they are aware of the criticism, but they don't let it affect their decisions....at least not the type of criticism from protestors and such.

I might agree as to certain protestors, however, I certainly believe that, or at least I hope, they do take into account more civil criticism, and I suspect that it does at times affect the questions they ask each other and The Lord. I guess the real question is how do such matters gain the attention of the GAs. Obviously crude protests or grasping protests are a turn off. And I know nothing about these protest groups and their motivations. But I think all members should be sensitive to ill conceived remarks and thinking such as that somehow the Priesthood is a trade off for not being able to have children or the notion that a majority of LDS women are such wilting violets that they will leave the Church rather than face the additional responsibilities of the Priesthood etc. Those arguments are demeaning in a host of different ways. Yes, there are some technical difficulties that would have to be considered in particular the problem of mixed presidencies which the Church has tried to avoid. And perhaps there are some theologically sound reasons for the differentiation...which would be great to hear.