The "Ordain Women" Website

[Calm]

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.

Don't you think that particular site is going beyond a simple proposal?

[Stone holm]

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."

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.

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.

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

Oh feel free to be blunt. I think, however you twisted a little bit what I said about protests. I said they were rarely appropriate against the Church for the reason that people always had the alternative to just leave the Church, which many have over gender stereotyping. We might be able to prevent or limit that, if people felt their issues were being heard, and some Bishops try very hard to listen. I am not sure the don't write the Prophet policy necessarily sends the right message, so would hurt to maybe invest in paying and training some people to read and carefully respond to letters. Would that really take so much time and resources away from other necessary pursuits? It might just save some souls, course we don't think the worth of souls is all that great...oh wait Somebody did say the worth was great, wonder Who that was?

[Calm]

Oh feel free to be blunt. I think, however you twisted a little bit what I said about protests. I said they were rarely appropriate against the Church for the reason that people always had the alternative to just leave the Church, which many have over gender stereotyping. We might be able to prevent or limit that, if people felt their issues were being heard, and some Bishops try very hard to listen. I am not sure the don't write the Prophet policy necessarily sends the right message, so would hurt to maybe invest in paying and training some people to read and carefully respond to letters. Would that really take so much time and resources away from other necessary pursuits? It might just save some souls, course we don't think the worth of souls is all that great...oh wait Somebody did say the worth was great, wonder Who that was?

I think the direction to deal with these things on a local level is more about getting personal attention for what are in probably the vast majority of cases a need for personal attention. Also to encourage people to do their own personal study and seeking of the Lord's Will when looking for doctrinal and other answers rather than just appealing to a spiritual authority.

If people were encouraged to write GAs, chances are (from what I've heard by those who want to do such things) the majority want the greater inspiration that they believe goes along with apostleship, etc. while ignoring that such stewardship is much more generalized than the inspiration that comes with a local leader....but local leaders are too well known and thus appear to be too imperfect to many, how then can they be properly inspired?

Perhaps an alternative would be to have such letters be given to the local leaders to mail so that they are aware of any issue and can deal with it if appropriate and they could include a note to that effect ("I have talked with this individual etc. and have these results..."), but that seems to me that could increase the workload of local leaders pass the breaking point.

And finally, people don't write GAs so they can get an answer from someone with no 'high authority' who has been appointed to answer letters. They want interaction with the GAs themselves. Having the general direction of "talk to your local leaders" prevents or should prevent many from taking offense (inappropriately) because their letter didn't rate personal attention but got 'passed on' to just a secretary, etc.

Edited March 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

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

Hah! There are those that speculate...........I'm not one of them, of course.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Alma 13 makes it clear the Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God is for males. It is reasonable

to extrapolate this as the way things are on all other worlds.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Stone holm]

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

I think that has been what has been consistently taught by the Church leaders, every once in awhile it has crossed my mind that we could be wrong about that -- for a Personage Who is so central to our faith, we know almost as little about the Holy Ghost as that other personage(s) Heavenly Mother.

[Stone holm]

I think the direction to deal with these things on a local level is more about getting personal attention for what are in probably the vast majority of cases a need for personal attention. Also to encourage people to do their own personal study and seeking of the Lord's Will when looking for doctrinal and other answers rather than just appealing to a spiritual authority.

If people were encouraged to write GAs, chances are (from what I've heard by those who want to do such things) the majority want the greater inspiration that they believe goes along with apostleship, etc. while ignoring that such stewardship is much more generalized than the inspiration that comes with a local leader....but local leaders are too well known and thus appear to be too imperfect to many, how then can they be properly inspired?

Perhaps an alternative would be to have such letters be given to the local leaders to mail so that they are aware of any issue and can deal with it if appropriate and they could include a note to that effect ("I have talked with this individual etc. and have these results..."), but that seems to me that could increase the workload of local leaders pass the breaking point.

And finally, people don't write GAs so they can get an answer from someone with no 'high authority' who has been appointed to answer letters. They want interaction with the GAs themselves. Having the general direction of "talk to your local leaders" prevents or should prevent many from taking offense (inappropriately) because their letter didn't rate personal attention but got 'passed on' to just a secretary, etc.

Probably right. My letters were never about personal matters when they went directly towards the top, but on the other hand, I have witnessed some heart wrenching brush offs of others -- that caused me to say "What on Earth were they thinking." So I tend to think, there really has to be a better way of handling this -- maybe we need a GA or two that do nothing but sit in an office and respond to letters all day, anything to avoid this business of sending people back non-responsive form letters. I know of one boy who went totally inactive over such a response.

[Bernard Gui]

I think that has been what has been consistently taught by the Church leaders, every once in awhile it has crossed my mind that we could be wrong about that -- for a Personage Who is so central to our faith, we know almost as little about the Holy Ghost as that other personage(s) Heavenly Mother.

But we do know more about the Father and the Son.

[alter idem]

Alma 13 makes it clear the Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God is for males. It is reasonable

to extrapolate this as the way things are on all other worlds.

I think it's hasty to extrapolate too much and assume it tells us about things beyond this world.

I read Alma 13 and other than mentioning 'brethren', I'm not seeing that this explicitly excludes females. You also kept emphasizing "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" which I also don't see as wording which excludes females.

And in case you think I'm a female agitating for the ordination of women, I'm not. I accept the fact that the Lord has limited who could hold his Priesthood at various times. I just take issue with your claiming there is evidence that Priesthood should be limited to only men in the scriptures you cited.

Edited March 27, 2013 by alter idem

[Stone holm]

But we do know more about the Father and the Son.

Point being?

[Bernard Gui]

Point being?

There is much, much more revealed about the Father and the Son than there is about the Holy Spirit and our Mother.

Divine investiture of authority and literal father/son relationship in heaven and on earth, to be specific.

[Bernard Gui]

I think it's hasty to extrapolate too much and assume it tells us about things beyond this world.

I read Alma 13 and other than mentioning 'brethren', I'm not seeing that this explicitly excludes females. You also kept emphasizing "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" which I also don't see as wording which excludes females.

And in case you think I'm a female agitating for the ordination of women, I'm not. I accept the fact that the Lord has limited who could hold his Priesthood at various times. I just take issue with your claiming there is evidence that Priesthood should be limited to only men in the scriptures you cited.

Those holding the priesthood were fore-ordained in the pre-mortal world. They were men.

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.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Stone holm]

There is much, much more revealed about the Father and the Son than there is about the Holy Spirit and our Mother.

Divine investiture of authority and literal father/son relationship in heaven and on earth, to be specific.

Not sure I follow you with regards to the "literal father/son relationship in heaven and on earth"... are you saying that there is some question about both being literal? I don't think I can go there with you if you are, but I don't see that relationship has anything to do with ordaining women. It maybe that women will not receive additional priesthood, but don't see the authority for that position in your arguments.

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories...fb_source=pubv1

John Dehlin~

Today we interview Kate Kelly – Co-founder of the Ordain Women website (http://ordainwomen.org). In this episode we discuss: why Kate and her associates are calling for the ordination of LDS women, how female ordination might benefit both the institutional church and its members, and how others can support this initiative. Additional links mentioned in the podcast are listed below.

And this...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56096212-78/women-priesthood-church-lds.html.csp

Edited April 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[Rivers]

http://mormonstories...fb_source=pubv1

John Dehlin~

Today we interview Kate Kelly – Co-founder of the Ordain Women website (http://ordainwomen.org). In this episode we discuss: why Kate and her associates are calling for the ordination of LDS women, how female ordination might benefit both the institutional church and its members, and how others can support this initiative. Additional links mentioned in the podcast are listed below.

And this...

http://www.sltrib.co...ch-lds.html.csp

This should be an interesting one.

[mercyngrace]

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.

If we are using that standard, are men allowed to be "brides" of Christ?

[Scott Lloyd]

If we are using that standard, are men allowed to be "brides" of Christ?

That's a figure of speech and refers to the entire body of the Church, not to individual members.

[Buckeye]

That's a figure of speech and refers to the entire body of the Church, not to individual members.

I think that's her point. "Sons of God" is also a figure of speech, not an express definition meant to exclude women.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that's her point. "Sons of God" is also a figure of speech, not an express definition meant to exclude women.

I would question whether that's the case in every single instance. Depending on the context, I think it could refer to men only.

[Maidservant]

quite a few women for whom it would be a trial of faith if the priesthood were extended to them.

I would be one of them (if ordinations to Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were extended; I have always maintained that I have priesthood).

(And, noting, I don't consider it to be a leadership or equality issue, for me.)

For example, there were a fair number of Saints who are deserving to be called Saints who wondered about the wisdom of having encouraged support from the pulpit at a Conference for Prop 8. Not because they were enamored with SSM -- I certainly am not, but because they felt that the Church had just taken a political stance which involved a question as to what extent we have any moral right to impose our beliefs on others and which painted every active prominent Mormon with one broad moral brush -- is it therefore a condition of membership that you necessarily have to stand quiet when you believe political oppression is afoot? I hope not. We unfortunately had a fair number of members who felt perhaps it was so they walked out the door and took their families with them. I stayed and went head to head with the Stake President on the issue. It was a very touchy issue in our Ward, so touchy that a High Councilman who was directed to read a letter regarding the need for oppositional political activism on SSM in one of the States that is part of our Ward in our Ward Relief Society basically was told by the Relief Society to take his letter and get out of their meeting. Is that steadying the ark? I don't know, but I do know that it kept some of the Sisters in the Church -- although we still lost others.

Wow . . .

They said, oh they were there for an Explorer Post meeting. My wife got an odd look on her face, as she was the YW's President at the time, and asked but we aren't allowed to have co-educational Explorer Posts like other Units. They said, "Oh, well we can't have them, our daughters are in the Catholic Explorer Post."

also wow .

Not only that but I think that women are valued in the lds church as heavenly father values his own wife.

Another consideration that a lot of us may be missing, is how do we know eternal women (or, more likely, eternal men and women together) didn't design this whole mortality progression anyway? I have long considered that the Father-Son-Holy Ghost is an interface image between the hosts on earth and the hosts in heaven. In this sense, "the Father" isn't the top of anything except us down here, not the 'top' the celestial society. He is the president of a priesthood office that is overseeing this mortality. There is a lot more to that society than three people.

The church is and has always been a Patriarchal organization.

Yes. But Patriarchal doesn't mean male, scripturally. It means parentage. It inherently requires the male and the female--in the proper relationship to each other.

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:

I have never read these words as being male exclusive and I don't think the scriptures, taken together, supports that. I don't know if you know what it's like to be a woman and be reading the scriptures, I don't know if men do this or have to do this, but whenever I as a female read any of the stories about males, I have to liken it to myself, and of course, I'm female, so I have to realize God means me too. So if I read the four sons of Mosiah going on a mission to the Lamanites, I can't say, well, gee, I guess if some guys who loved each other and wanted to serve together, wow, that's a good example for my brothers and my sons and I'll just skip that part of the scriptures next time, since it's inapplicable. I have to say, "*I* need to serve people even unexpected people, and I should prepare myself to served and preach the gospel (i.e. like the sons of Mosiah did it with fasting, prayer)." I don't opt out of that story because I'm female and the characters in the story are male.

And key words like this "the Order of the Son of God", means the Order of the Son of God, but it doesn't mean "the Order meant ONLY for the sons of our heavenly Father". In fact, this order I have always understood to be related to the Church of the Firsborn, although I could be mistaken on that, but that is male and female. In any case, the SON in this phrase is Jesus Christ; and also I could say more about what "son" means but it would also include "daughters", and it has to do with why we come to earth (and I send you to the beginning phrases of Mosiah 15). I point you here, as well: Mosiah 5:7 and surrounding verses. But in any case, no where in the Alma passage does it say men. The only high priest it specifies is Melchizedek, who is male, so maybe we have a presumption of male, but if you will comb through all of the sentences that you posted it does not say male or man or sons, ever (only Son). And, for me, it's because this is a temple passage. And after saying all this, I am someone who thinks that it is important that priesthood ordinations should remain male, but my only argument here is that the usage of the doctrine Order of the Son of God is not the support for that, or as I am understanding right now.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

And to correct something I said above--the Church (at the ward level) is an Aaronic priesthood organization . . . not a Patriarchal organization. And nothing about the organization of the Church that uses the element of Presidency and Council (one president, two counselors, councils) is a Patriarchal organization.

The family is a patriarchal priesthood organization.

[Pahoran]

http://mormonstories...fb_source=pubv1

John Dehlin~

Today we interview Kate Kelly – Co-founder of the Ordain Women website (http://ordainwomen.org). In this episode we discuss: why Kate and her associates are calling for the ordination of LDS women, how female ordination might benefit both the institutional church and its members, and how others can support this initiative. Additional links mentioned in the podcast are listed below.

And this...

http://www.sltrib.co...ch-lds.html.csp

So Mister Dehlin is buddying up with another group of apostates. And this is news -- how, exactly?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

So Mister Dehlin is buddying up with another group of apostates. And this is news -- how, exactly?

Regards,

Pahoran

It's definitely interesting to say the least.

[Stone holm]

I would be one of them (if ordinations to Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were extended; I have always maintained that I have priesthood).

(And, noting, I don't consider it to be a leadership or equality issue, for me.)

Wow . . .

also wow .

Another consideration that a lot of us may be missing, is how do we know eternal women (or, more likely, eternal men and women together) didn't design this whole mortality progression anyway? I have long considered that the Father-Son-Holy Ghost is an interface image between the hosts on earth and the hosts in heaven. In this sense, "the Father" isn't the top of anything except us down here, not the 'top' the celestial society. He is the president of a priesthood office that is overseeing this mortality. There is a lot more to that society than three people.

Yes. But Patriarchal doesn't mean male, scripturally. It means parentage. It inherently requires the male and the female--in the proper relationship to each other.

I have never read these words as being male exclusive and I don't think the scriptures, taken together, supports that. I don't know if you know what it's like to be a woman and be reading the scriptures, I don't know if men do this or have to do this, but whenever I as a female read any of the stories about males, I have to liken it to myself, and of course, I'm female, so I have to realize God means me too. So if I read the four sons of Mosiah going on a mission to the Lamanites, I can't say, well, gee, I guess if some guys who loved each other and wanted to serve together, wow, that's a good example for my brothers and my sons and I'll just skip that part of the scriptures next time, since it's inapplicable. I have to say, "*I* need to serve people even unexpected people, and I should prepare myself to served and preach the gospel (i.e. like the sons of Mosiah did it with fasting, prayer)." I don't opt out of that story because I'm female and the characters in the story are male.

And key words like this "the Order of the Son of God", means the Order of the Son of God, but it doesn't mean "the Order meant ONLY for the sons of our heavenly Father". In fact, this order I have always understood to be related to the Church of the Firsborn, although I could be mistaken on that, but that is male and female. In any case, the SON in this phrase is Jesus Christ; and also I could say more about what "son" means but it would also include "daughters", and it has to do with why we come to earth (and I send you to the beginning phrases of Mosiah 15). I point you here, as well: Mosiah 5:7 and surrounding verses. But in any case, no where in the Alma passage does it say men. The only high priest it specifies is Melchizedek, who is male, so maybe we have a presumption of male, but if you will comb through all of the sentences that you posted it does not say male or man or sons, ever (only Son). And, for me, it's because this is a temple passage. And after saying all this, I am someone who thinks that it is important that priesthood ordinations should remain male, but my only argument here is that the usage of the doctrine Order of the Son of God is not the support for that, or as I am understanding right now.

Gave you a bump on this one, really on a roll Maidservant

[BCSpace]

However, some of the profiles (such as that by my friend Hannah Wheelwright) are nicely done. I have no problem with anyone expressing their view on this or any other subject.

Neither do I. But I also would have no problem with the Church summarily excommunicating these people.