The "Ordain Women" Website

[Calm]

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

Since when does the Church "summarily excommunicate" people? At least for noncriminal behaviour? Edited April 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Maidservant]

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

Thank you. You are kind to say .

[Pepcigirl]

If these women want the Priesthood, then they should join the Community of Christ! These women not only want to be in the world, they want to be part of it as well - they believe that if women can hold high positions in the business world, they can in the church as well. But Jesus DID NOT call women to be his Apostles, nor did he call then to be Seventies during his ministry. Neither did the Apostles appoint women to be Bishops or Elders to lead the local churches. In fact it states in 1Timothy "This is a true saying, if a MAN desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless the husband of one WIFE......"(1Timothy 3:1-2, [3-7]).

Even deacons in those early times were to be husband of one WIFE (1Tim 3:v12).

Edited April 4, 2013 by Pepcigirl

[Tacenda]

I don't think it'd be wise to put someones full name on a website like this. There are wackos out there even in the church.

Also, the church put out another statement last night concerning the Ordain Women website. They pretty much nixed the idea right away, by saying that the Priesthood line was from Jesus and it wouldn't ever change. When I'm near a computer I'll c/p and add to my post unless someone beats me to it.

The women, or men too, plan to meet up at the U of U during the men's Priesthood session. I'm sure the statement from the church put a damper on things but really not that much, look how quickly the church might have a woman pray in conference. It just might take baby steps, I'd be happy if they just gave women back the RS to run, like it use to be!

ETA:“There is nothing in the scriptures which suggests that to be a man rather than a woman is preferred in the sight of God, or that He places a higher value on sons than on daughters.

“The worth of a human soul is not defined by a set of duties or responsibilities. In God’s plan for His children, both women and men have the same access to the guidance of His spirit, to personal revelation, faith and repentance, to grace and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ, and are received equally as they approach Him in prayer.

“The practice of ordaining men to the priesthood was established by Jesus Christ himself, and is not a decision to be made by those on Earth.”

http://fox13now.com/2013/04/03/mormon-group-pushes-for-women-to-get-the-priesthood/

Edited April 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[mercyngrace]

If these women want the Priesthood, then they should join the Community of Christ! These women not only want to be in the world, they want to be part of it as well - they believe that if women can hold high positions in the business world, they can in the church as well. But Jesus DID NOT call women to be his Apostles, nor did he call then to be Seventies during his ministry. Neither did the Apostles appoint women to be Bishops or Elders to lead the local churches. In fact it states in 1Timothy "This is a true saying, if a MAN desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless the husband of one WIFE......"(1Timothy 3:1-2, [3-7]).

Even deacons in those early times were to be husband of one WIFE (1Tim 3:v12).

We should stop letting women speak in church, too. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.(1 Cor 14:34)

[Buckeye]

ETA:“There is nothing in the scriptures which suggests that to be a man rather than a woman is preferred in the sight of God, or that He places a higher value on sons than on daughters.

“The worth of a human soul is not defined by a set of duties or responsibilities. In God’s plan for His children, both women and men have the same access to the guidance of His spirit, to personal revelation, faith and repentance, to grace and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ, and are received equally as they approach Him in prayer.

“The practice of ordaining men to the priesthood was established by Jesus Christ himself, and is not a decision to be made by those on Earth.”

http://fox13now.com/...the-priesthood/

Thanks Tacenda, I find the church statement very helpful and hopeful. Of critical importance, the gender restriction on priesthood is not claimed to be a doctrine, but simply a practice. Too often members believe it is a doctrine. The same error occurred with our practices of plural marriage and the racial priesthood ban. Thankfully, the Church has very recently confirmed that both of those were practices, not doctrine.

• Introduction to OD-1: "... After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church."
  

• Introduction to OD-2: "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."
  

In fact, if you read the full introductions, both plural marriage and the priesthood ban are referred to as practices twice.

(see http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od?lang=eng ) While I have not idea if/when the practice of excluding women from the priesthood will end, acknowleding that it is only a practice is an important step in preparing members for that change.

BTW, equally important is what the Church did affirm to be doctrine; namely, equality: "In a statement to FOX 13, LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said, “It is the doctrine of the Church that men and women are equal. The Church follows the pattern of the Savior when it comes to priesthood ordination.”"

[bluebell]

Thanks Tacenda, I find the church statement very helpful and hopeful. Of critical importance, the gender restriction on priesthood is not claimed to be a doctrine, but simply a practice. Too often members believe it is a doctrine. The same error occurred with our practices of plural marriage and the racial priesthood ban. Thankfully, the Church has very recently confirmed that both of those were practices, not doctrine.

• Introduction to OD-1: "... After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church."
  

• Introduction to OD-2: "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."
  

In fact, if you read the full introductions, both plural marriage and the priesthood ban are referred to as practices twice.

(see http://www.lds.org/s...ent/od?lang=eng ) While I have not idea if/when the practice of excluding women from the priesthood will end, acknowleding that it is only a practice is an important step in preparing members for that change.

BTW, equally important is what the Church did affirm to be doctrine; namely, equality: "In a statement to FOX 13, LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said, “It is the doctrine of the Church that men and women are equal. The Church follows the pattern of the Savior when it comes to priesthood ordination.”"

I think you might be reading to much into OD-1.

The revelation received did actually only end the practice of plural marriage but did not end the doctrine, which we still (as a church) very much believe in. In such a case, using the term 'practice' makes sense, but does not imply that plural marriage isn't doctrine in the LDS church.

Edited April 4, 2013 by bluebell

[Buckeye]

I think you might be reading to much into OD-1.

The revelation received did actually only end the practice of plural marriage but did not end the doctrine, which we still (as a church) very much believe in. In such a case, using the term 'practice' makes sense, but does not imply that plural marriage isn't doctrine in the LDS church.

Here is the full introduction, with labels such as "practice", "doctrine", and "standard" emphasized:

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s

standard

for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see

2 Samuel 12:7–8

and

Jacob 2:27, 30

). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the

practice

of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see

section 132

). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious

practice

illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the

practice

of plural marriage in the Church.

Notice that "doctrine" does not appear anywhere. Joseph received a revelation and the practice started. Following opposition, President Woodruff received a revelation leading to the end of the practice. Polygamy is never described as a doctrine (at least here; I realize Sec. 132 can be read that way and that Sec. 132 is scripture, not the OD-1 introduction). Also notice that monogamy is emphasized as God's standard. That statement doesn't necessarily gut the possibility of polygamy in the eternities but I think it does exclude a belief that someone must enter into polygamy to be exalted.

Regardles, my point is that the Church is emphasizing "practice" with regard to the gender priesthood restriction. As shown in OD-1 and OD-2, practices can change.

[bluebell]

Here is the full introduction, with labels such as "practice", "doctrine", and "standard" emphasized:

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s

standard

for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see

2 Samuel 12:7–8

and

Jacob 2:27, 30

). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the

practice

of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see

section 132

). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious

practice

illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the

practice

of plural marriage in the Church.

Notice that "doctrine" does not appear anywhere. Joseph received a revelation and the practice started. Following opposition, President Woodruff received a revelation leading to the end of the practice. Polygamy is never described as a doctrine (at least here; I realize Sec. 132 can be read that way and that Sec. 132 is scripture, not the OD-1 introduction). Also notice that monogamy is emphasized as God's standard. That statement doesn't necessarily gut the possibility of polygamy in the eternities but I think it does exclude a belief that someone must enter into polygamy to be exalted.

Regardles, my point is that the Church is emphasizing "practice" with regard to the gender priesthood restriction. As shown in OD-1 and OD-2, practices can change.

Like i said, i think you may be putting to much stock into people's choice of words here. For example, baptism for the dead is also often referred to as a 'practice' but that doesn't mean it's not also doctrine. Practice is just the word that people chose to describe the physical act.

We still practice plural marriage today in the temple, because we believe it is an eternal doctrine. If you search the term "doctrine of plural marriage" on LDS.org, you'll see that it's referred to as doctrine quite a bit in many different church publications including lesson manuals and quotes by past prophets and apostles.

[Buckeye]

I think you might be reading to much into OD-1.

The revelation received did actually only end the practice of plural marriage but did not end the doctrine, which we still (as a church) very much believe in. In such a case, using the term 'practice' makes sense, but does not imply that plural marriage isn't doctrine in the LDS church.

One other question, just so I'm not confused. What do you mean by plural marriage being a "doctrine which we still (as a church very much believe in"? What exactly is the doctrine? Is it that plural marriage is acceptable when authorized by God? [i would agree we believe that] Is it that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation? [This was taught by Brigham and others, but, as mentioned above, I believe this is not currently accepted church teaching] Is it that plural marriage may be practice in the eternities, we just don't know? Or something else?

[bluebell]

One other question, just so I'm not confused. What do you mean by plural marriage being a "doctrine which we still (as a church very much believe in"? What exactly is the doctrine? Is it that plural marriage is acceptable when authorized by God? [i would agree we believe that] Is it that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation? [This was taught by Brigham and others, but, as mentioned above, I believe this is not currently accepted church teaching] Is it that plural marriage may be practice in the eternities, we just don't know? Or something else?

It's LDS doctrine that plural marriage is occassionally commanded by God and is acceptable under those circumstances, and that plural marriage exists in Heaven.

[Buckeye]

Like i said, i think you may be putting to much stock into people's choice of words here. For example, baptism for the dead is also often referred to as a 'practice' but that doesn't mean it's not also doctrine. Practice is just the word that people chose to describe the physical act.

We still practice plural marriage today in the temple, because we believe it is an eternal doctrine. If you search the term "doctrine of plural marriage" on LDS.org, you'll see that it's referred to as doctrine quite a bit in many different church publications including lesson manuals and quotes by past prophets and apostles.

Fair enough. What then is the difference between doctrine and practice? I know that's a very difficult question. For me, I'm not sure I have a complete definition, but I conceptualize doctrines as things of eternal weight (sort of "the end") and practices as temporary, but changeable ways to accomplish those ends (sort of "the means"). Thus, as one example, we have a doctrine of meeting together oft to partake of the sacrament and renew covenants. We have a practice of doing that in a 70-minute sacrament meeting that starts at 9:00 am each Sunday. A practice can (and does) change depending on any number of factors. A doctrine (generally) does not. While my definition may not be very precise, I believe my thinking roughly tracks that of most members. Namely; practices are temporary and changeable; doctrines or eternal and unchangeble (or at least much harder to change than practices).

To the degree my dichotomy holds up, the decision to label the gender priesthood restriction a "practice" verses a "doctrine" is a very important consideration for determining whether women could be given the priesthood. Specifically, if the restriction is just a practice, that word choice undercuts many people's belief that women can never receive the priesthood.

Also, to address the OD introductions, while I do know that plural marriage and the racial priesthood bans have been labeled as doctrines at many points in the past, I also think the word choice for these new introductions are very important in establishing current thought. I believe an awful lot of time an attention went into the wording for the introductions, and nothing was more carefully considered than the word "practice". It's a very big deal.

[Buckeye]

It's LDS doctrine that plural marriage is occassionally commanded by God and is acceptable under those circumstances, and that plural marriage exists in Heaven.

Fair enough. I think that definition is accurate of many member's belief, particularly those who have been members for awhile. FWIW, it's what I believe. However, I also know many members who believe that plural marriage may exist in Heaven, we just don't know. They do not believe plural marriage will exist. I read the new OD-1 introduction as a step towards the "may" and away from the "will".

[bluebell]

Fair enough. What then is the difference between doctrine and practice? I know that's a very difficult question. For me, I'm not sure I have a complete definition, but I conceptualize doctrines as things of eternal weight (sort of "the end") and practices as temporary, but changeable ways to accomplish those ends (sort of "the means"). Thus, as one example, we have a doctrine of meeting together oft to partake of the sacrament and renew covenants. We have a practice of doing that in a 70-minute sacrament meeting that starts at 9:00 am each Sunday. A practice can (and does) change depending on any number of factors. A doctrine (generally) does not. While my definition may not be very precise, I believe my thinking roughly tracks that of most members. Namely; practices are temporary and changeable; doctrines or eternal and unchangeble (or at least much harder to change than practices).

To the degree my dichotomy holds up, the decision to label the gender priesthood restriction a "practice" verses a "doctrine" is a very important consideration for determining whether women could be given the priesthood. Specifically, if the restriction is just a practice, that word choice undercuts many people's belief that women can never receive the priesthood.

Also, to address the OD introductions, while I do know that plural marriage and the racial priesthood bans have been labeled as doctrines at many points in the past, I also think the word choice for these new introductions are very important in establishing current thought. I believe an awful lot of time an attention went into the wording for the introductions, and nothing was more carefully considered than the word "practice". It's a very big deal.

I agree that there is a huge theological difference between a practice and a doctrine and that it would be important to understand those differences as they relate to our beliefs.

But I think the issue here-the one i'm talking about-is creating theological meanings for words that might have been chosen or used with no theological underpinings included.

In other words, sometimes people just use words because they sound good and make sense and for no other deeper meaning.

I'm guessing that's what happens in many of the numerous articles on baptism for the dead where people use 'doctrine of baptism for the dead' and 'practice of baptism for the dead' practically interchangably, for example. I'm guessing it also happens often when people discuss or write about plural marriage. And i wouldn't be at all surprised if that's what happened on the latest LDS statement regarding women and the priesthood.

There's no proof of course, and the only way to get any would be to talk to the person who chose to use the exact words that they did, which probably isn't going to happen. Like i've said though, given the way that LDS typically interchange the words doctrine and practice on many subjects without actually trying to teach anything specific through the use of each word, I think it might be reading much more into the use of one word over the other than the user of the word actually meant to imply.

There's room for others to disagree with me, but, especially in regards to the LDS newsroom statement, i don't see any evidence that a different interpretation would be more valid than mine.

[Buckeye]

Thanks again BB. I agree that we (all of us) often interchange words without thinking things through. For purposes of this discussion about ordination, though, what I've driving at is whether the newsroom statement expresses a view that the restriction is open to change. I think the newsroom is much more circumspect in its word choice than an average member. And I think their choice of "practice" intentionally leaves open the possibility for a change, while at the same time reaffirming the current practice. Would you agree with that?

[bluebell]

Thanks again BB. I agree that we (all of us) often interchange words without thinking things through. For purposes of this discussion about ordination, though, what I've driving at is whether the newsroom statement expresses a view that the restriction is open to change. I think the newsroom is much more circumspect in its word choice than an average member. And I think their choice of "practice" intentionally leaves open the possibility for a change, while at the same time reaffirming the current practice. Would you agree with that?

That could be.

Like i said, without being able to ask the person who wrote the release, it's impossible to know either way. Maybe GC will clear things up by being more emphatic one way or the other.

[mercyngrace]

Like i said, without being able to ask the person who wrote the release, it's impossible to know either way. Maybe GC will clear things up by being more emphatic one way or the other.

That would be interesting and surprising.

[mercyngrace]

Thanks again BB. I agree that we (all of us) often interchange words without thinking things through. For purposes of this discussion about ordination, though, what I've driving at is whether the newsroom statement expresses a view that the restriction is open to change. I think the newsroom is much more circumspect in its word choice than an average member. And I think their choice of "practice" intentionally leaves open the possibility for a change, while at the same time reaffirming the current practice. Would you agree with that?

I read the statement much as you did, Buckeye. I read a carefully worded press release which allows for both acceptance of the current policy and potential for change should God reveal to that end.

Given that similar statements were released about the ban on blacks and the priesthood prior to 1978, I think a "circumspect" statement is wise while remaining gentle.

See the following quote (cnp from Wiki) for example:

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it.’^[58]

[Maidservant]

Look, some perspective.

There is already an eternal society of celestial beings (by whatever name we might call this) who is living in perfect bonds with each other, male and female, brother and sister, father and mother, etc. In fact, we were already part of that society before we came to earth. This society and ourselves as (previous) members of that society, are completely aware of what the ultimate and joyous potential for the relationships between all human beings, including any gender relationship. In fact, this society and its orders, knowledges, practices, loves, ordinances (of which mortal earth life is one), priesthood, powers, dominions is endlessly ancient. Endlessly. Eons. They, and we, are not novices at this! The knowledge and order already exists and is completely known, and completely lived by countless beings. God is not confused or lacking on what should be happening as to countless matters, subjects, realms, issues including but not limited to: priesthood, administration, men, women, and the progression of mortal beings through mortality and out the other end into the next section of our progression. If we had our full sight, if we were not subject to the veil, we also are not confused about this knowledge.

In other words, what we do to hash out our existence on this planet does not make a dent into what is really happening OUT THERE IN REAL REALITY. Our life here on earth is a temporary condition which has only the smallest shadow of a resemblance to REALITY as lived by countless celestial beings from countless ages and of which we are preparing ourselves to be full members of, thus the necessity of our mortal sojourn, ordinance, progression.

God's understanding and knowledge on these matters cannot change (because his knowledge is already full). God's understanding and knowledge on how to assist mortal beings through the stages of individual and collective mortality to the point of full revelation of the celestial kingdom is also not in question, as again, such things are practiced and known and lived endlessly in the eternities.

The only thing that can, and will, change--is our (mortal) relationship to that celestial knowledge.

The only thing that can, and will, change--is the gradual removal of the veil from our eyes, so that we can see, know and live that celestial knowledge for ourselves.

So keeping that in mind, then, we, of course, are here on this planet, struggling in our womb, trying to break open the shell with our little beak (which we cannot have help with, we have to do ourselves), and caterpillars stewing in a chrysalis for when we arise with wings. So we can only know what WE know, from our position, and add in a little trust in God for his higher thoughts.

So it seems that there are some of us who think that we cannot come closer to celestiality unless women receive Aaronic and Melchizedek ordinations and offices and serve in such ways in the church, and exercise the exclusive properties of such authorizations.

It seems that there are some of us who think that we cannot come closer to celestiality unless we leave the ordinations as they are and come to more fully understand what that means in terms of progression and salvation = freedom. (I am in this category.)

There are likely some of us who think that whatever is happening here is telestial administration and will, in the end, have no or very limited application in a celestial world, and that our priesthood picture will be something unimaginable at the point we are at now (think caterpillar/butterfly). (I am also in this category.)

And assuming the previous paragraph is or might be true, then we still have to ask ourselves, how do we get (by stages?) from where we are now, to that reality? And what is God doing to assist us along in that? (And no one need imagine that he isn't, because, again, he's not confused on these kinds of things, having full knowledge.)

We might ask if we trust if our leaders (Pres. Monson) are listening carefully enough to God to hear his direction on these matters, but let us discard this sad possibility, because I think they are at least doing the best they can and as well as any of us could claim, as human beings trying to hear God, and if by chance we are all hearing different things, perhaps there is a reason for that, but at least we cannot say that we know more than another and if any have that claim, it might as well rest with the prophet (this is the "least" point of view; we could have a greater point of view and trust in the anointing of these great, loving servants).

We also differ about what is means to ask, seek, knock--what is our Father in heaven really expecting from us on this level. I think we can generally say that God is giving us knowledge only as fast as we are prepared for it, but what does that preparation mean?

So I understand that we must struggle with these things, in order to come to the truth. We must have our wrestle with the angel, individually and collectively. But let us remember that there is already a perfectly bound society of people living in full love with one another and there is no confusion as to what this constitutes, among them, and this order is endlessly ancient to the point where it cannot admit change because any glitches there could possibly have been would have been ironed out by now.

This isn't the first round of things in our life nor in the life of the multi-metaverse!

So if we are mortal, and human, and progressing--then how do we personally come to know the mind of God on the matter of the formation of this society that he lives, and how best we might reflect it while in the stage we now are at?

Edited April 4, 2013 by Maidservant

[bluebell]

That would be interesting and surprising.

We can always hope, especially with the attention this topic is getting.

[Calm]

These women not only want to be in the world, they want to be part of it as well - they believe that if women can hold high positions in the business world, they can in the church as well.

For many women who desire the priesthood, the only thing they want is the ability to bless their families in the way that a man can.

[juliann]

Like i said, i think you may be putting to much stock into people's choice of words here. For example, baptism for the dead is also often referred to as a 'practice' but that doesn't mean it's not also doctrine. Practice is just the word that people chose to describe the physical act.

We still practice plural marriage today in the temple, because we believe it is an eternal doctrine. If you search the term "doctrine of plural marriage" on LDS.org, you'll see that it's referred to as doctrine quite a bit in many different church publications including lesson manuals and quotes by past prophets and apostles.

But it isn't "people" using those words, it is the church itself. And I am sure that when a statement is released on behalf of the church, the words are chosen with the utmost care.

Since all recent statements have carefully called it a practice, I think we are obligated to do the same...especially when scripture chapter headings are being changed. That is going to trump older publications and manuals. There is nothing that I am aware of that mandates polygamy as doctrine, especially in the future..... without ignoring modern prophets. Once the church has officially called something a practice, that is what it is and all it is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For many women who desire the priesthood, the only thing they want is the ability to bless their families in the way that a man can.

Why even have men then?

[bluebell]

But it isn't "people" using those words, it is the church itself.

I realize that, but people make up the church so I don't know that the distinction is necessary, especially since none of the usages in question are considered scripture.

And I am sure that when a statement is released on behalf of the church, the words are chosen with the utmost care.

Hopefully, but that wouldn't really preclude plural marriage being doctrine.

Techinically, the practice did end in 1890, but we still teach as a church that a man sealed to more than one wife will be a polygamist in heaven. There is no valid reason for doing that if plural marriage was considered non-doctrinal).

Also, as we know, the practice of plural marriage did not actually end in 1890, so that right there shows that released statements on behalf of the church are not always exactly what they appear to be, even when they are released with care.

Since all recent statements have carefully called it a practice, I think we are obligated to do the same...especially when scripture chapter headings are being changed. That is going to trump older publications and manuals. There is nothing that I am aware of that mandates polygamy as doctrine, especially in the future..... without ignoring modern prophets. Once the church has officially called something a practice, that is what it is and all it is.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, i guess. Which recent statements are you referring to?

[Calm]

Why even have men then?

I suppose if one saw the only purpose of men was to give blessings to their families, that would be a valid question. Most women I know though see their husband's role as much more expansive than just giving blessings and much broader than just bearing the Priesthood.