CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Simply turning the questions on her isn't a valid argument.Sure it is. Depending upon the argument. You may have missed it because I did not make it explicit. Such is my nature. I have been accused of being "understated". I agree. I often am so understated that I do not actually describe the root of the argument I am making and people do not get it. As you did.Which is fine with me. But I admit it does not always lead to good communication.
Damien the Leper Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Sure it is. Depending upon the argument. You may have missed it because I did not make it explicit. Such is my nature. I have been accused of being "understated". I agree. I often am so understated that I do not actually describe the root of the argument I am making and people do not get it. As you did.Which is fine with me.But I admit it does not always lead to good communication.Ok. But it is hardly a "cliffhanger" worth chasing after. If you can't be explicit and make your intentions known then there are much bigger problems to be dealt with on your behalf. 1
MorningStar Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 The feminist movement poisoned her. As you said (but differently) having the priesthood would not let you feel the spirit more ore better.I'm sad she believes that. Priesthood doesn't mean "Extra Strength Holy Ghost". 2
teddyaware Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure whether this has already been brought up, but there's a website that's been put advocating the ordination of women.Personally, I don't like the site organizers' description of their project of "calling on" church leaders to ordain women through "strategic non-violent action." This sounds like secular pressure-group strategy misapplied to the Church.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. Others' thoughts?DonIn light of common knowledge that's available to all experienced Latter-day Saints, one wonders why folks such as these are clamoring for priesthood conferral and ordination for women? Is it not common knowledge -- at least for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear -- that at some point in the Lord's timetable we're going to get a more thorough understanding of the role of the priestesshood in the spiritual lives of LDS women? I believe it's quite likely, when it's purpose is finally fleshed out, that we're going to learn the roles for priests and priestessess are complimentary but not exactly alike.Since the concept of an actual priestesshood -- not priesthood -- role for LDS women is not speculative but concrete, one wonders why these people are pressing for priesthood ordination for women, when to me it would seem more logical that they should (if they might do so with propriety) be pressing for an explanation as to what the role of the priestesshood is all about; and why there has, heretofore, been no further further light and knowledge shed as to what the role is of this institution we call the priestesshood?"We do not rear children just to please our vanity. We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, priests and priestesses for our Lord." (Spencer W. Kimball, "Train up a Child") Edited March 20, 2013 by teddyaware 2
wenglund Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 There is something puzzling to me about the self-ordained calling for ordinations.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Senator Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I'm sad she believes that. Priesthood doesn't mean "Extra Strength Holy Ghost".But it does mean Extra Something, doesn't it?
wenglund Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) But it does mean Extra Something, doesn't it?Chest hair?Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited March 20, 2013 by wenglund
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Ok. But it is hardly a "cliffhanger" worth chasing after.Absolutely!Baiting won't be tolerated. When asked for evidence give it. You are out of the thread.
Ahab Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Others' thoughts?Looks to me like they're asking for something they don't understand.It might help if we told them who to go to so they can learn about what is involved in receiving the priesthood, and being ordained to an office in an order of the preisthood, and being called to serve in the Church, and why things are the way they are, etc.It would be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end. Hopefully they'll learn to overcome their ignorance and receive the priesthood as it should be received, as it is.
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Maybe they know it's a lost cause but are starting out with the biggest change to get even the smallest change since anything is better than nothing? 1
Wanderer7 Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 After we get women ordained, maybe we should focus on doing baptisms for the dead for infants. Stay on topic.
why me Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Maybe they know it's a lost cause but are starting out with the biggest change to get even the smallest change since anything is better than nothing?When the church changes policy because of pressure groups or identity groups, the church might as well close its doors. The lds church is not an organization that should buckle under a pressure group.
why me Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 After we get women ordained, maybe we should focus on doing baptisms for the dead for infants. Stay on topic.Who is we? I am still trying to understand why we are only mentioning women when girls would need to get the priesthood at 11 too.
mtomm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I don't understand why you keep mentioning girls getting the priesthood. I guess because you've wanted to make the point that the YM/YW would then have to start meeting together? I'm not sure why you think they would HAVE to meet together? I would point to the temple as an example of why I think that maybe this really has no basis.And why do you keep saying that the priesthood is conferred at 11? My boys were ordained Deacons when they turned 12. Has something changed that I don't know about? 1
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 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.Exactly right...we do this at a local level all the time, gather in fast and prayer for victims of tragedies or for asking for drought or other detrimental conditions to be removed. Extended families may ask each other to pray for a particular family member. It seems to me that there would be nothing wrong with using technology to extend the invitation to fast and pray for a particular issue to as many as one can reach...with the condition that is always attached by those who are wise and experienced on the way to properly fast and pray and that is emphasizing the condition that they accept the Will of the Lord in all things, but especially in this.
rongo Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I don't understand why you keep mentioning girls getting the priesthood.I think those who are very excited thinking about women having the priesthood would be equally excited thinking about girls blessing and passing the sacrament. I, too, am confused about why me's emphasis on the priesthood beginning with girls. This would be a selling point to these people, not a Law of Unintended Consequences "ah ha!" moment.
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 The lds church is not an organization that should buckle under a pressure group.Surely it is more important if the action being pressured for is right or wrong? If we should accept the truth no matter the source, then surely we shouldn't we accept the inspiration for righteous change from whatever the source as well? 1
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I think those who are very excited thinking about women having the priesthood would be equally excited thinking about girls blessing and passing the sacrament. I, too, am confused about why me's emphasis on the priesthood beginning with girls. This would be a selling point to these people, not a Law of Unintended Consequences "ah ha!" moment.Just as there is a separation of groups dependent on age in priesthood, there could easily be a separation of gender as well, thus maintaining the Relief Society and Young Women's groups...one would just have to add "quorum" to their names. 1
why me Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) I think those who are very excited thinking about women having the priesthood would be equally excited thinking about girls blessing and passing the sacrament. I, too, am confused about why me's emphasis on the priesthood beginning with girls. This would be a selling point to these people, not a Law of Unintended Consequences "ah ha!" moment.Since men basically receive the priesthood when they are boys, it would be the same for women. They receive the priesthood when they are girls. Now of course, the adults who are women, would get the priesthood but eventually, it would need to start with girls. So, it is not just women getting the priesthood but also girls. And yet, I see no mention of girls.Unintended consequences would be the abolishing of relief society and the separate programs for young men and young women. Plus, the elimination of visiting teaching. And a huge elder's quorum class. And no more sister missionaries, but all will be elders. Quite a transformation for the lds church. And if it is seen as a change from outside pressure such as a pressure group, many would leave the church. Edited March 20, 2013 by why me
why me Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Surely it is more important if the action being pressured for is right or wrong? If we should accept the truth no matter the source, then surely we shouldn't we accept the inspiration for righteous change from whatever the source as well?I think that the church is in a bind. It is not a protestant church but a restoration church which depends on revelation. And this would take a revelation. If it is a pressure group that invokes the change, the critics would claim that the lds church is becoming more like the Community of Christ, a neo-protestant group. And this would not be good for a restorationist church. Edited March 20, 2013 by why me
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Since men basically receive the priesthood when they are boys, it would be the same for women. They receive the priesthood when they are girls. Now of course, the adults who are women, would get the priesthood but eventually, it would need to start with girls. So, it is not just women getting the priesthood but also girls. And yet, I see no mention of girls.Unintended consequences would be the abolishing of relief society and separate programs for young men and young women. Plus, the elimination of visiting teaching. And a huge elder's quorum class. And no more sister missionaries, but all will be elders. Quite a transformation for the lds church. And if it is seen as a change from outside pressure such as a pressure group, many would leave the church.12 year old "girls" are placed in Young Women's plus using the term "women" as a synonym for "female" is not that uncommon, such as when talking about a "woman's doctor". Clothing for that age is also for young women and not girls.There is no automatic need to eliminate the separate gender programs just as there is no need to eliminate the age differences among the priesthood quorums merely because they are all priesthood holders. One is not forced to have certain groups NOT meet together. 1
rongo Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Since men basically receive the priesthood when they are boys, it would be the same for women. They receive the priesthood when they are girls. Now of course, the adults who are women, would get the priesthood but eventually, it would need to start with girls. Not necessarily. Maybe there would be long nights of interviews and ordinations to get the wards "up to speed" with version 2.0. Seriously, hypothetically speaking, I don't see why it would take a long time for the "water to get to the end of the row" with adult women having to wait until a generation of girls gets the priesthood.Unintended consequences would be the abolishing of relief society and separate programs for young men and young women. Plus, the elimination of visiting teaching. And a huge elder's quorum class. And no more sister missionaries, but all will be elders.I'm sorry, but none of these follow. I don't see how this "doomsday" scenario would necessarily have to be. Why would RS have to be abolished? Why couldn't they hold separate priesthood meetings under the auspices of RS? Why would VT have to be eliminated? The actual change to ordination of women is a much bigger change than any structural changes that would follow it. 1
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I think that the church is in a bind. It is not a protestant church but a restoration church which depends on revelation. And this would take a revelation. If it is a pressure group that invokes the change, the critics would claim that the lds church is becoming more like the Community of Christ, neo-protestant group. And this would not be good for a restorationist church.I think it would greatly depend on how it was handled. The Church survived the change in polygyny due to the "pressure group" of the federal government which resulted in the revelation discussed in OD 1. If it is God's Church, it can survive anything if it is God's Will for it to survive. 3
why me Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Just as there is a separation of groups dependent on age in priesthood, there could easily be a separation of gender as well, thus maintaining the Relief Society and Young Women's groups...one would just have to add "quorum" to their names.TI think that if women were given the priesthood the reason for a separation would be very difficult to explain. The sexes are separated now because of the priesthood and the differing roles of men and women as there are for girls and boys. No reason to separate the sexes if both sexes have the priesthood. It would be considered sexist.
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Seriously, hypothetically speaking, I don't see why it would take a long time for the "water to get to the end of the row" with adult women having to wait until a generation of girls gets the priesthood.Makes no sense since adult male converts get the priesthood relatively shortly after they become members. One could easily assume that all temple recommend holders that are women are priesthood worthy, have an interview process that interviews to see if they desire to accept the Priesthood and then immediately after confirm it upon them....much like a temple recommend process, only with an ordination attached at the end of it. It might take a couple of months to get through an entire ward and stake, but don't see it taking longer than that. 2
Recommended Posts