The "Ordain Women" Website

[Brenda]

I look forward to the day when women are ordained to the priesthood.

I sure don't. Not at all. But if it ever happens, I'll have to adjust my thinking. I think there is wisdom in the way things are. And I don't want to speculate on the reasons. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I just think the Lord knows what he's doing.

[Stone holm]

Has anyone else seen this article? Actually, the flippant remark about prayers on the second page was...wrong, but kind of funny.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/a-new-era-for-mormon-women/2013/03/25/04085c26-9593-11e2-bc8a-934ce979aa74_story.html

[Pahoran]

Yeah, I flipped back some more and I never used those words.

I didn't say you had; but you smacked me around the face for disagreeing with Mayan Elephant about precisely those words. If that's not what you were talking about, then what precisely was your point?

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.

There were very minor changes in the 1980's. But there weren't any faithful Latter-day Saints making "public protests" about the content of our Temple ordinances then, either; and the content of those ordinances is nobody else's business.

At all.

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

Good thing that wasn't my position, then.

However, if someone makes a specific assertion about a specific event, and I or someone else asks for references to support that specific assertion, then what is required is facts, not assumptions. You do understand, don't you, that "Church leaders are aware of criticism" does not support a claim similar to, "That particular change was made in response to massive social pressure?"

Which is and was Mayan Elephant's claim?

The claim on which I asked for references?

The claim which you supported by taking issue with me?

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.

And now you are responding to words I didn't say. The future is an unknown quantity, and all bets are off. I wasn't talking about "speculating" or anything like it; I rather specifically said "agitating." Perhaps this is also just a quirk of my New Zealand dialect, but those words are not synonyms in my dictionary.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

I didn't say you had; but you smacked me around the face for disagreeing with Mayan Elephant about precisely those words. If that's not what you were talking about, then what precisely was your point?

There were very minor changes in the 1980's. But there weren't any faithful Latter-day Saints making "public protests" about the content of our Temple ordinances then, either; and the content of those ordinances is nobody else's business.

At all.

Good thing that wasn't my position, then.

However, if someone makes a specific assertion about a specific event, and I or someone else asks for references to support that specific assertion, then what is required is facts, not assumptions. You do understand, don't you, that "Church leaders are aware of criticism" does not support a claim similar to, "That particular change was made in response to massive social pressure?"

Which is and was Mayan Elephant's claim?

The claim on which I asked for references?

The claim which you supported by taking issue with me?

And now you are responding to words I didn't say. The future is an unknown quantity, and all bets are off. I wasn't talking about "speculating" or anything like it; I rather specifically said "agitating." Perhaps this is also just a quirk of my New Zealand dialect, but those words are not synonyms in my dictionary.

Regards,

Pahoran

Mayan Elephant will have to respond for what he meant by his words. I think that several times I indicated that I did not know anything about the protest groups, my comments have nearly always been directed in support of civil discussion of alternatives -- I am not an agitator or even an activist, although I frequently empathize with the positions taken by both. Occasionally, protest groups actually harm the cause for which they are protesting, and in such instances it is appropriate for people with a calmer approach to step in and do damage control in the form of trying to give a more reasoned and quiet discussion of the issue. On the other hand, with regards to the secular realm, sometimes protests are important in order to gain attention. Had Rosa Parks not decided to move to the front of the bus -- her race might have been sitting in the back unto this very day. That sort of thing, however, is rarely, if ever, appropriate when directed towards the Church since people who are oppressed may just walk out the door permanently -- which unfortunately, I can think of several who have done just that over gender stereotyping in the Church. That grieves me, and maybe if they had had some channel to vent their grievances they might have stayed -- or maybe not. My wife recently brought up the issue of none of Deseret foods being organic and the fact that most are loaded with GMOs and have been irradiated -- she is kind of a nutrition/health fanatic combined with being a very strong Church member, and she was wondering about sending a letter to the Church. I indicated that she could, but it has been my experience that such letter writing is a complete waste of time because it normally gets bounced back to the Priesthood chain to die, or it receives some banal response from a secretary to a secretary, and that the Church has repeatedly admonished the members not to write GAs. She didn't realize that Church had officially discouraged trying to contact the GAs and was surprised. I indicated once an organization gets so large, it inevitably winds up putting distance between its members and its leaders, which is sad, but clearly understandable since otherwise they would wind up being a Dear Abby response team.

[rongo]

or it receives some banal response from a secretary to a secretary, and that the Church has repeatedly admonished the members not to write GAs.

And yet, GAs almost every conference read from a letter they received from so and so ---- thus encouraging those who would give their right arm to have their letter read in conference (about their porn-addicted husband or whatever) to continue writing to GAs (especially apostles).

Edited March 26, 2013 by rongo

[Stone holm]

And yet, GAs almost every conference read from a letter they received from so and so ---- thus encouraging those who would give their right arm to have their letter read in conference (about their porn-addicted husband or whatever) to continue writing to GAs (especially apostles).

Yeah, odd isn't it. Guess the trick is to write something which supports whatever is already going to be preached. Trying imagine them reading a letter regarding organic food in the Church welfare system at Conference? Hm.....nope doesn't compute....

[why me]

Yeah, odd isn't it. Guess the trick is to write something which supports whatever is already going to be preached.

Or the letter triggers something for the GA to preach about. I think that it can work this way more often.

[why me]

Trying imagine them reading a letter regarding organic food in the Church welfare system at Conference? Hm.....nope doesn't compute....

And under what context would they be impelled to read such a letter?

[rongo]

Or the letter triggers something for the GA to preach about. I think that it can work this way more often.

In that case, then, preach on that subject. But don't emphasize that we are not to write to Salt Lake, and if we do, it will be sent back to our stake president ---- and then read three letters during a conference from different rank-and-file members.

I know people who, every time this happens, get excited because they might just "break on through" this or next time ---- given the tangible example before them of a read letter received by the GA.

[Buckeye]

In that case, then, preach on that subject. But don't emphasize that we are not to write to Salt Lake, and if we do, it will be sent back to our stake president ---- and then read three letters during a conference from different rank-and-file members.

I know people who, every time this happens, get excited because they might just "break on through" this or next time ---- given the tangible example before them of a read letter received by the GA.

What if the speaker changed the wording from "I received this letter from a member" to somthing along the lines of "I was forwarded this letter from a stake president who had received it from a member of his stake"? That would allow the sentiments to be shared but enforce the practice that letters should go to local leaders.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Buckeye

[rongo]

What if the speaker changed the wording from "I received this letter from a member" to somthing along the lines of "I was forwarded this letter from a stake president who had received it from a member of his stake"? That would allow the sentiments to be shared but enforce the practice that letters should go to local leaders.

Said no GA from the pulpit. Ever.

They are always personal letters they have received from the rank-and-file.

Besides, I think the stake presidents are supposed to forward them to area authority seventies, not send them directly to a member of the Twelve.

[Stone holm]

Said no GA from the pulpit. Ever.

They are always personal letters they have received from the rank-and-file.

Besides, I think the stake presidents are supposed to forward them to area authority seventies, not send them directly to a member of the Twelve.

Chances of a letter winding its way up through all the channels in the line of authority to the First Presidency....hm, let's see....1 in say a million? Probable destinations for that letter: 1) wastebasket, 2) response by Stake President, 3) banal letter from a secretary in Salt Lake not actually responding to the letter.

[why me]

Said no GA from the pulpit. Ever.

They are always personal letters they have received from the rank-and-file.

Besides, I think the stake presidents are supposed to forward them to area authority seventies, not send them directly to a member of the Twelve.

We need to be realistic here. A GA could receive tens of letters a month. It would be impossible to handle all the letters. And quite often they can't personally respond to each letter. And so, going through local authorities would be the best solution. However, ever so often, a letter stands out and as such, it is read from the pulpit. Do you think that Obama reads all his letters that he gets from people and yet, he always has a letter to read during the state of the union message.

[why me]

Chances of a letter winding its way up through all the channels in the line of authority to the First Presidency....hm, let's see....1 in say a million? Probable destinations for that letter: 1) wastebasket, 2) response by Stake President, 3) banal letter from a secretary in Salt Lake not actually responding to the letter.

It seems to be something personal with you. Have you had a letter ignored. Besides we are now off topic since all this has very little to do with ordaining women.

[Pahoran]

Chances of a letter winding its way up through all the channels in the line of authority to the First Presidency....hm, let's see....1 in say a million? Probable destinations for that letter: 1) wastebasket, 2) response by Stake President, 3) banal letter from a secretary in Salt Lake not actually responding to the letter.

On balance, I doubt that the letters from secretaries are any more "banal" than those to which they are responding.

To paraphrase something I once heard: everyone who writes to a GA thinks they've written the 95 Theses, when they've usually struggled to reach a standard of "Teacher, Do You Love Me" or similar.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

It seems to be something personal with you. Have you had a letter ignored. Besides we are now off topic since all this has very little to do with ordaining women.

Yes, many times before I realized the futility and since then have heard of numerous examples of others. I can only recall two which were either not ignored or did not receive banal form letter responses. One was a responses from the historical department regarding early missionary work in NE Indiana, the other was a non-banal response to a letter of concern that I wrote about Court ordered de-brainwashings being ordered for converts to the Mooneys which I felt if expanded might find our converts being targeted. The response to the latter was the Brethren had not yet taken a position -- which I took to mean they were already monitoring the situation.

[rongo]

We need to be realistic here. A GA could receive tens of letters a month. It would be impossible to handle all the letters. And quite often they can't personally respond to each letter. And so, going through local authorities would be the best solution. However, ever so often, a letter stands out and as such, it is read from the pulpit. Do you think that Obama reads all his letters that he gets from people and yet, he always has a letter to read during the state of the union message.

That's my point exactly. A GA reading "a letter that stands out" from among "tons of letters a month," when there are regular letters from the FP admonishing members not to write GAs, is *exactly* like Obama "always having a letter to read during the state of the union address." Just address the timely topic *without* reading the letter.

[smac97]

On the other hand, with regards to the secular realm, sometimes protests are important in order to gain attention. Had Rosa Parks not decided to move to the front of the bus -- her race might have been sitting in the back unto this very day. That sort of thing, however, is rarely, if ever, appropriate when directed towards the Church since people who are oppressed may just walk out the door permanently -- which unfortunately, I can think of several who have done just that over gender stereotyping in the Church.

I do not think that secular agitation techniques used against secular/political entities are ever appropriate for Church members to use against the Church.

I disagree that these techniques are wrong primarily because people who use them may end up leaving the Church. They are wrong because they cheapen the Church and treat it as a mere social construct, a human institution to be pushed and cajoled into changing its doctrines to satisfy the prevailing views of the day.

I also disagree with the assumption that the Church "oppresses" women by not giving them the priesthood, or that the Church "oppresses" anyone, for that matter. The Church is a community of faith. To suggest that it must bend to the will of some particular grievance group or else be accused of "oppressing" that group is inaccurate and unfair.

I also reject your characterization of the Church's teachings about the respective roles of men and women as "gender stereotyping."

That grieves me, and maybe if they had had some channel to vent their grievances they might have stayed -- or maybe not.

The Church is what it claims to be. If a person chooses to value the opinions of men, or their own opinions, more than the revelations of God, and if they leave the Church because of that, then that is indeed unfortunate. But the answer to that is not for the Church to alter its doctrines because this member or that finds them to be unpalatable.

My wife recently brought up the issue of none of Deseret foods being organic and the fact that most are loaded with GMOs and have been irradiated -- she is kind of a nutrition/health fanatic combined with being a very strong Church member, and she was wondering about sending a letter to the Church. I indicated that she could, but it has been my experience that such letter writing is a complete waste of time because it normally gets bounced back to the Priesthood chain to die, or it receives some banal response from a secretary to a secretary, and that the Church has repeatedly admonished the members not to write GAs.

This is a common refrain amongst agitators, who use it to justify their speaking out publicly against the Church.

The problem is that I do not believe it is accurate. I was on my stake's high council for three years, and I have been in my ward's bishopric for nearly three years. In contrast to your vague (and insulting) generalities and unsubstantiated anecdotes about the Church leadership, I have personally witnessed my stake presidency and my bishop raise and discuss concerns brought to them by Church members. Many times. Much thought and discussion is given to these concerns. So I object to your inaccurate characterization that such concerns are "bounced back to the (local) Priesthood chain to die." It is a cheap shot. It is inaccurate. But it is a convenient excuse for agitators when they want to justify their speaking out publicly against the Church.

She didn't realize that Church had officially discouraged trying to contact the GAs and was surprised. I indicated once an organization gets so large, it inevitably winds up putting distance between its members and its leaders, which is sad, but clearly understandable since otherwise they would wind up being a Dear Abby response team.

There are very good reasons for the Church's policy regarding writing to GAs. First, the whole point of having a priesthood hierarchy is so that governance of the Church can be appropriate handled and managed. Many concerns of church members can and should be resolved by local leaders. It is their responsibility. Their stewardship. Going "over the heads" of the local leaders and directly to the Brethren is therefore unwise, unnecessary, and even unscriptural.

Second, the Church is comprised of millions of members now. It is a large and complex organization. The policy of members referring concerns to local leaders makes a lot of sense from a purely logistical standpoint (in addition to the spiritual/scriptural bases for this policy).

Third, the system of referring concerns to local priesthood leaders can be, and often is, effective in addressing those concerns (see my previous comments about your cheap shot about such concerns are "bounced back to the (local) Priesthood chain to die"). To the extent that this system breaks down, that becomes an opportunity for training, correction and improvement. It is not an excuse to disregard the policy and speak out publicly against the Church.

Fourth, I have personally witnessed this policy work effectively, with a concern which is communicated to local priesthood leaders, with those local leaders considering the concern and coming to a decision about it. That decision is not always well received by the person with the concern, but it is a rank falsehood for such a person to suggest that because their concern was not addressed in the way they wanted it to be addressed, it has not been addressed at all. But that is, I think, what happens sometimes. A person voices a concern, gets a response that he/she did not want, and thereafter complains that the Church doesn't listen (or, to use a recently-coined phrase, that his/her concern was merely "bounced back to the (local) Priesthood chain to die"). That's not what has happened, but that is what is portrayed.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT: In re-reading this, I realize that it comes across as a bit harsh. To the extent it is unduly blunt, I apologize. Having personally witnessed local leaders specifically and directly address concerns communicated to them, having witnessed and participated in the discussions and prayers about such concerns, I get irritated at what what appear to be cynical accusations that this is not happening, that the local leaders or the Brethren are dismissive of such concerns, that the priesthood organizational structure never works like it is supposed to, and that agitators are therefore justified in pursuing an answer to their particular grievance by circumventing all of this and instead mounting a PR campaign to foment public opinion against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27, 2013 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

Since the true name of the Priesthood is "The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God," ordaining women to the Priesthood would require rewording or repudiating these:

D&C 107

1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood...

13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations.

Alma 13

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb...

16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;

18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

19 Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention.

20 Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction...

25 And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice.

26 And it shall be made known unto just and holy men, by the mouth of angels, at the time of his coming, that the words of our fathers may be fulfilled, according to that which they have spoken concerning him, which was according to the spirit of prophecy which was in them.

[Calm]

Since the true name of the Priesthood is "The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God," ordaining women to the Priesthood would require rewording or repudiating these:

It is the Church of Jesus Christ. Doesn't mean that only men can be members.

[Bernard Gui]

At least 2 of the members of the Godhead are male - the Father and the Son.

For whatever reasons, the plan of salvation hinges on this relationship. This requires

a basic distinction between the roles of the male and the female in the plan.

The eternal callings of Father, Son, Savior, High Priest, and Holy Orders of the Priesthood are

for some reason intrinsic to the male.

The Father and the Son

A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

From

Improvement Era

, Aug. 1916, 934–42.

In the early 1900s, some discussion arose among Church members about the roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following in 1916 to clarify the meaning of certain scriptures where JesusChrist, or Jehovah, is designated as the Father. It is thought that a printing of this statement will be helpful to members as they study the Old Testament this year.

The scriptures plainly and repeatedly affirm that God is the Creator of the earth and the heavens and all things that in them are. In the sense so expressed, the Creator is an Organizer. God created the earth as an organized sphere; but He certainly did not create, in the sense of bringing into primal existence, the ultimate elements of the materials of which the earth consists, for “the elements are eternal” (D&C 93:33).

So also life is eternal, and not created; but life, or the vital force, may be infused into organized matter, though the details of the process have not been revealed unto man. (For illustrative instances see Gen. 2:7; Moses 3:7; Abr. 5:7.) Each of these scriptures states that God breathed into the body of man the breath of life. See further Moses 3:19 for the statement that God breathed the breath of life into the bodies of the beasts and birds. God showed unto Abraham “the intelligences that were organized before the world was”; and by “intelligences” we are to understand personal “spirits” (see Abr. 3:22–23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that “Intelligence,” that is, “the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29).

The term “Father” as applied to Deity occurs in sacred writ with plainly different meanings. Each of the four significations specified in the following treatment should be carefully segregated.

1. “Father” as Literal Parent

Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification—literally that of Parent—are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title “Elohim,” is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race. Elohim is the Father in every sense in which Jesus Christ is so designated, and distinctively He is the Father of spirits. Thus we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Heb. 12:9). In view of this fact we are taught by Jesus Christ to pray: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name” (Matt. 6:9).

Jesus Christ applies to Himself both titles, “Son” and “Father.” Indeed, He specifically said to the brother of Jared: “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14). Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title “Son of God” as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary.

2. “Father” as Creator

A second scriptural meaning of “Father” is that of Creator; e.g., in passages referring to any one of the Godhead as “the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are” (Ether 4:7; see also Alma 11:38–39; Mosiah 15:4).

God is not the Father of the earth as one of the worlds in space, nor of the heavenly bodies in whole or in part, not of the inanimate objects and the plants and the animals upon the earth, in the literal sense in which He is the Father of the spirits of mankind. Therefore, scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the heavens and the earth are to be understood as signifying that God is the Maker, the Organizer, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father,” and even “the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (see passages before cited and also Mosiah 16:15). With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called “The Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6; compare 2 Ne. 19:6). The descriptive titles “Everlasting” and “Eternal” in the foregoing texts are synonymous.

That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the bookJesus the Christ, chapter 4 [by James E. Talmage]. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth.

3. Jesus Christ the “Father” of Those Who Abide in His Gospel

A third sense in which Jesus Christ is regarded as the “Father” has reference to the relationship between Him and those who accept His gospel and thereby become heirs of eternal life. Following are a few of the scriptures illustrating this meaning.

In fervent prayer offered just prior to His entrance into Gethsemane, Jesus Christ supplicated His Father in behalf of those whom the Father had given unto Him, specifically the Apostles, and, more generally, all who would accept and abide in the gospel through the ministry of the Apostles. Read in our Lord’s own words the solemn affirmation that those for whom He particularly prayed were His own, and that His Father had given them unto Him:

“I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

“Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

“For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

“And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but theson of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:6–12).

And further:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

“Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:20–24).

To His faithful servants in the present dispensation the Lord has said, “Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me” (D&C 50:41).

Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the gospel; and all who are thus saved become sons and daughters unto God in a distinctive sense. In a revelation given through Joseph the Prophet to Emma Smith, the Lord Jesus addressed the woman as “my daughter” and said, “For verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom” (D&C 25:1). In many instances the Lord had addressed men as His sons (e.g., D&C 9:1; D&C 34:3; D&C 121:7).

That by obedience to the gospel men may become sons of God, both as sons of Jesus Christ, and, through Him, as sons of His Father, is set forth in many revelations given in the current dispensation. Thus we read in an utterance of the Lord Jesus Christ to Hyrum Smith in 1829:

“Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the life and the light of the world.

“I am the same who came unto mine own and mine own received me not;

“But verily, verily, I say unto you, that as many as receive me, to them will I give power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on my name. Amen” (D&C 11:28–30).

To Orson Pratt the Lord spoke through Joseph the seer, in 1830:

“My son Orson, hearken and hear and behold what I, the Lord God, shall say unto you, even Jesus Christ your Redeemer;

“The light and the life of the world, a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not;

“Who so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. Wherefore you are my son” (D&C 34:1–3).

In 1830 the Lord thus addressed Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon:

“Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.

“I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one” (D&C 35:1–2).

Consider also the following given in 1831:

“Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ—

“The light and the life of the world; a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not;

“The same which came in the meridian of time unto mine own, and mine own received me not;

“But to as many as received me, gave I power to become my sons; and even so will I give unto as many as will receive me, power to become my sons” (D&C 39:1–4).

In a revelation given through Joseph Smith in March 1831 we read:

“For verily I say unto you that I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the light and the life of the world—a light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

“I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life” (D&C 45:7–8).

A forceful exposition of this relationship between Jesus Christ as the Father and those who comply with the requirements of the gospel as His children was given by Abinadi, centuries before our Lord’s birth in the flesh:

“And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

“Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

“For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

“Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed” (Mosiah 15:10–13).

In tragic contrast with the blessed state of those who become children of God through obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ is that of the unregenerate, who are specifically called the children of the devil. Note the words of Christ, while in the flesh, to certain wicked Jews who boasted of their Abrahamic lineage: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. … Ye do the deeds of your father. … If God were your Father, ye would love me. … Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:39, 41–42, 44). Thus Satan is designated as the father of the wicked, though we cannot assume any personal relationship of parent and children as existing between him and them. A combined illustration showing that the righteous are the children of God and the wicked the children of the devil appears in the parable of the tares: “The good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one” (Matt. 13:38).

Men may become children of Jesus Christ by being born anew—born of God, as the inspired word states:

“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (1 Jn. 3:8–10).

Those who have been born unto God through obedience to the gospel may by valiant devotion to righteousness obtain exaltation and even reach the status of godhood. Of such we read: “Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God” (D&C 76:58; compare D&C 132:20, and contrast D&C 132:17 in same section; see also D&C 132:37). Yet though they be gods, they are still subject to Jesus Christ as their Father in this exalted relationship; and so we read in the paragraph following the above quotation: “And they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (D&C 76:59).

By the new birth—that of water and the Spirit—mankind may become children of Jesus Christ, being through the means by Him provided “begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24). This solemn truth is further emphasized in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ given through Joseph Smith in 1833:

“And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

“And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21–22).

For such figurative use of the term “begotten” in application to those who are born unto God, see Paul’s explanation: “For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). An analogous instance of sonship attained by righteous service is found in the revelation relating to the order and functions of priesthood, given in 1832:

“For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies:

“They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God” (D&C 84:33–34).

If it be proper to speak of those who accept and abide in the gospel as Christ’s sons and daughters—and upon this matter the scriptures are explicit and cannot be gainsaid nor denied—it is consistently proper to speak of Jesus Christ as the Father of the righteous, they having become His children and He having been made their Father through the second birth—the baptismal regeneration.

4. Jesus Christ the “Father” by Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that angel the Lord said, “Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him” (Ex. 23:21).

The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden:

“And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

“Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8–9).

And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself:

“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. 22:12–13).

The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying, “I come quickly,” “I am Alpha and Omega,” though he meant that Jesus Christ would come and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

None of these considerations, however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. Following are affirmative scriptures bearing upon this great truth. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says of Jesus Christ:

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

“And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

“For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” (Col. 1:15–19).

From this scripture we learn that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn of every creature,” and it is evident that the seniority here expressed must be with respect to antemortal existence, for Christ was not the senior of all mortals in the flesh. He is further designated as “the firstborn from the dead,” this having reference to Him as the first to be resurrected from the dead, or as elsewhere written “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20; see also 1 Cor. 15:23); and “the first begotten of the dead” (Rev. 1:5; compare Acts 26:23). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms the status of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the spirit children of His Father and extols the preeminence of the Christ when tabernacled in flesh: “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Heb. 1:6; read the preceding verses). That the spirits who were juniors to Christ were predestined to be born in the image of their Elder Brother is thus attested by Paul:

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:28–29).

John the Revelator was commanded to write to the head of the Laodicean church, as the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). In the course of a revelation given through Joseph Smith in May 1833, the Lord Jesus Christ said, as before cited, “And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). A later verse makes plain the fact that human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh: “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth” (D&C 93:23).

There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of humankind. That He is by spiritual birth Brother to the rest of us is indicated in Hebrews: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than any or all others, by reason (1) of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father; (3) of His selection and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

Edited March 27, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

It is the Church of Jesus Christ. Doesn't mean that only men can be members.

No comprendo. Could you explain, please?

[Calm]

At least 2 of the members of the Godhead are male - the Father and the Son.

I am pretty sure it's doctrinal that all three are male.

[Calm]

No comprendo. Could you explain, please?

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I assumed you meant that because the Priesthood was labeled "after the Order of the Son of God" that it meant only males could be part of that Order, yet we are in the Church of Jesus Christ so simply because something is organized with Christ at the head of it doesn't mean it is limited to males.

[Bikeemikey]

I really totally fail to grasp SMAC's view on this.

People sharing their experiences (even negative) with the church leadership and broader church community, and at the same time proposing some solutions that they feel would help mitigate these negative experiences, is not a bad thing.

I think we should communicate with our Church in the same way we communicate with the Lord. We have the model for prayer from our BOM study manual...

From the lesson regarding Ether 1:43. “This Long Time Ye Have Cried unto Me”

•The Lord explained to the brother of Jared that blessings had come to his people as a result of prayers offered over a long time. Enduring obedience coupled with frequent and persistent prayers is powerful. In an 1839 discourse in Commerce, Illinois, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “God is not a respecter of persons, we all have the same privilege. Come to God weary him until he blesses you &c we are entitled to the same blessings” ([recorded in Willard Richards Pocket Companion, 78–79] cited in The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, comp. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 15).

•President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) similarly taught that we must put great effort into our prayers and that we must pray frequently:

“Do you get answers to your prayers? If not, perhaps you did not pay the price. Do you offer a few trite words and worn-out phrases, or do you talk intimately to the Lord? Do you pray occasionally when you should be praying regularly, often, constantly? Do you offer pennies to pay heavy debts when you should give dollars to erase that obligation?

“When you pray, do you just speak, or do you also listen? Your Savior said, ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.’ (Rev. 3:20.)

“... Should we ever fail to get an answer to our prayers, we must look into our lives for a reason” (“Prayer,” New Era, Mar. 1978, 17).

We do not communicate with our church leaders through prayer, we communicate with them through other methods... however, using the same level of effort in these communications is not a bad thing. Weary them. If they say yes great. If they don't no harm done.

This kind of disent can not harm the Church as it has no direct impact on the real mechanisms of change (revelation from God). That said, this kind of disent can frame the questions that leaders seek answers to... this seems to have been part of our history already... OD1 & OD2 bear this out.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey