The "Ordain Women" Website

[Stone holm]

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:

And for years after David O. McKay made that statement there were books written by GAs which still made those statements being published.

[bluebell]

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.

I agree.

But i think i understand what Mola is asking. There are things, very important and spiritual things like growing and birthing children, that only a woman can do. Yes, she can't begin the process alone, but that doesn't change the fact that a man could never replace her part in the creation of life. Though children would cease to be conceived without men, that doesn't change the fact that motherhood is not at all synonomous with fatherhood-the responsibilities of a woman in regards to physical creation are different from those of a man and could never be replaced by a man.

With the priesthood it's different though. If women were ordained, then the kingdom of God could be administrated and run till the end of time without a single man. Men would be important, but no longer necessary in fulfilling the spiritual purposes of the Church. All of men's current spiritual responsibilities could be absorbed by women and a woman could replace every man who currently holds the priesthood and the church would still be able to proceed with it's mission to aide in the spiritual rebirth of the children of men as if men never existed in the first place.

Like i said, i agree with your point and i don't think that God would ever view men as so replaceable even if women were ordained, but i can understand why some would see the new scenario a little like that island of women from the Wicker Man.

[bluebell]

And for years after David O. McKay made that statement there were books written by GAs which still made those statements being published.

Did official church publications still publish such statements? (honestly wondering as i have no idea).

[Stone holm]

Did official church publications still publish such statements? (honestly wondering as i have no idea).

Oh I doubt it, but Bruce R. McConkie's misnamed "Mormon Doctrine" was still being published for years afterwards, I think eventually the First Presidency asked him to please stop publishing it because of all the innaccuracies, etc. The problem is, as I see it, if you squelch discussion about such stuff, then the stuff tends to linger longer. If you have a vigorous church community which can politely discuss doctrine and question the accuracy of some teachings you get a dialogue going that helps everyone in the search for truth, if somebody or some group gets way off beam then the leaders after consultation with the Lord and each other step in. But if you discourage discussion altogether, I am afraid that you create kind of a bubble wrapped thing that can lead to fossilization. Most of the D & C exists because the Brethren were tossing back and forth ideas in the School of the Prophets and then going to the Lord. After some things had percolated around in the school of Prophets long enough then the Lord would answer some questions. But the Church was small then and so a fairly decent percentage of the community was involved. It becomes less manageable as the Church grows larger. But even though some of the Brethren had intense personal dislikes for each other -- Brigham Young and John Taylor, being the most notorious, they were able to work together as a team and they were able to kick doctrinal things back and forth, and the Saints kicked things back and forth. There is some risk in all that, but we were sent down to a risky world and we are expected to use our brains and think things out, working it out in our heads so to speak. And that doesn't happen when you stiffle discussion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree.

But i think i understand what Mola is asking. There are things, very important and spiritual things like growing and birthing children, that only a woman can do. Yes, she can't begin the process alone, but that doesn't change the fact that a man could never replace her part in the creation of life. Though children would cease to be conceived without men, that doesn't change the fact that motherhood is not at all synonomous with fatherhood-the responsibilities of a woman in regards to physical creation are different from those of a man and could never be replaced by a man.

With the priesthood it's different though. If women were ordained, then the kingdom of God could be administrated and run till the end of time without a single man. Men would be important, but no longer necessary in fulfilling the spiritual purposes of the Church. All of men's current spiritual responsibilities could be absorbed by women and a woman could replace every man who currently holds the priesthood and the church would still be able to proceed with it's mission to aide in the spiritual rebirth of the children of men as if men never existed in the first place.

Like i said, i agree with your point and i don't think that God would ever view men as so replaceable even if women were ordained, but i can understand why some would see the new scenario a little like that island of women from the Wicker Man.

I think and am pretty sure I agree.

[reubendunn1]

I am one who would not mind if women were to be ordained to the priesthood, because, if it were to happen, it would be the will and mind of the Lord. There has come down from the leadership no instructions to cease and desist wishing for and talking about such things. I think that maybe if the ladies would use the their communications facilities and technology to unite themselves in fasting and prayer to the Lord, those efforts just might be rewarded. I really think that is the proper way for such issues to be addressed.

Glenn

Here's a problem with this thought Glenn; Were this to happen, it would run counter to the very scriptures themselves. I think Joseph Fielding Smith once said that "If I said anything that ran counter to what the scrptures say, the scriptures would prevail."

The Church made this following statement:

"The worth of a human soul is not defined by a set of duties or responsibilities," spokeswoman Jessica Moody said in a statement Tuesday. "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 priesthood "was established by Jesus Christ himself," Moody said, "and is not a decision to be made by those on Earth."

[Garden Girl]

I think in line with Elder Ballard's conference talk this morning, that IMO Priesthood ordination of women will not be happening anytime soon...

GG

[bluebell]

I think in line with Elder Ballard's conference talk this morning, that IMO Priesthood ordination of women will not be happening anytime soon...

GG

i had the same feeling.

I really loved his talk and how it explained how men and women have unique responsibilities in God's work. The fact that he taught that it was men's unique job to hold the priesthood seems to preclude women being ordained in the foreseeable future.

[Calm]

Here's a problem with this thought Glenn; Were this to happen, it would run counter to the very scriptures themselves. I think Joseph Fielding Smith once said that "If I said anything that ran counter to what the scrptures say, the scriptures would prevail."

Sometimes new revelation does run counter to past revelation in the scriptures....such as the revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, revelation that gave the Aaronic priesthood to nonLevites, etc.

However, I would not expect such revelation to appear out of the blue, I would think there would be some preparation/groundbreaking for it...to open members' minds to the possibility just as what happened with new directions from the Lord in the past.

Edited April 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Sometimes new revelation does run counter to past revelation in the scriptures....such as the revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, revelation that gave the Aaronic priesthood to nonLevites, etc.

However, I would not expect such revelation to appear out of the blue, I would think there would be some preparation/groundbreaking for it...to open members' minds to the possibility just as what happened with new directions from the Lord in the past.

Agreed

[Bikeemikey]

Sometimes new revelation does run counter to past revelation in the scriptures....such as the revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, revelation that gave the Aaronic priesthood to nonLevites, etc.

However, I would not expect such revelation to appear out of the blue, I would think there would be some preparation/groundbreaking for it...to open members' minds to the possibility just as what happened with new directions from the Lord in the past.

I also agree with this. Though with the 1978 OD for all the ground breaking and preparation it still felt out of the blue to most. In fact, what was likely the ground breaking and preparation for the 1978 change was possibly considered by many as opposition to the brethren and anti-mormon/apostate fringe propaganda. For all we know this website is part of this "groundbreaking".

[Calm]

I also agree with this. Though with the 1978 OD for all the ground breaking and preparation it still felt out of the blue to most. In fact, what was likely the ground breaking and preparation for the 1978 change was possibly considered by many as opposition to the brethren and anti-mormon/apostate fringe propaganda. For all we know this website is part of this "groundbreaking".

I agree. I got the impression many were surprised because they thought if the Church hadn't changed their position when all the outside pressure was put on, that it wouldn't change its position at all...that it would be the next life perhaps where blacks would receive the Priesthood as that would seem to be what many past leaders had believed.

Now that we have two examples of major changes---one due to immediate outside pressure (plural marriage where the Lord acted at the time of the greatest social pressure that would have resulted in the temples being shutdown if the revelation hadn't been received then), one where outside pressure had pretty much dissipated (priesthood ban where people have pretty much accepted the status quo as the status quo forever because of the prior resistance to social pressure)---so that thoughtful, informed (in the historical context) people will likely, imo, look to a more complicated process of change (whatever that might be) than was expected in the past. This may lead to a greater persistence among those who agitate for change as well as a higher comfort level among those who desire change, but are willing to wait on the Lord's time without taking steps beyond personal prayer and study because they understand that change is always a possibility in a faith that believes in continuing revelation.

[reubendunn1]

Sometimes new revelation does run counter to past revelation in the scriptures....such as the revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, revelation that gave the Aaronic priesthood to nonLevites, etc.

However, I would not expect such revelation to appear out of the blue, I would think there would be some preparation/groundbreaking for it...to open members' minds to the possibility just as what happened with new directions from the Lord in the past.

There was nothing that ran counter to the command that Peter got about taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Recall what The Lord Himself said about gospel to the world? In any event, that prohibition was based on the Law of Moses, rather than the gospel that The Lord taught, so, IMHO, that's not really a valid argument.

Remember, the Standard Works are here for a reason, they set the standard upon which our doctrinal beliefs are founded.