The "Ordain Women" Website

[why me]

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.

Why would women elders need relief society and men elders need priesthood if both are now elders? Why the difference in teaching? Why the separation of the sexes? From the outside it would look very sexist, an old boys club where men wish to meet alone.

[Calm]

I 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.

Not at all. The sexes are separated in the temple just fine even when both are receiving blessings of the priesthood, etc. A joint Priesthood meeting that is then divided into various quorums just as now could be done. I have heard not a few women saying they wish RS was divided into 'quorums' rather than meeting as a full group so that more individual needs could be addressed in lessons depending on stage of life as opposed to a generic one size fits all women version.

And just as the roles for EQ and HPs are different, roles for the female priesthood could be different as well....it might be viewed as sexist but if a logical case could be made for them so what, are the different roles between EQ and HP viewed as 'ageist'?

[why me]

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.

I think that most boys and men do not see the priesthood as optional. It is something that is expected of them. And the same would need be for girls and women. A mormon man's identity in the church is with the priesthood. How many mormon women wish to marry a mormon man who has rejected the priesthood?

[why me]

And just as the roles for EQ and HPs are different, roles for the female priesthood could be different as well....it might be viewed as sexist but if a logical case could be made for them so what, are the different roles between EQ and HP viewed as 'ageist'?

I don't think that the women behind the women should be ordained movement see it this way. They see it as one of equality and not one of difference.

Edited March 20, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

Why would women elders need relief society and men elders need priesthood if both are now elders? Why the difference in teaching?

Because there could still be lessons on how to be good mothers, fathers, wives and husbands, young men and young women, etc. Giving the priesthood to women does not automatically remove their gender.

[Calm]

I don't think that the women behind the women should be ordained movement see it this way. They see it as one of equality and not one of difference.

So what? They are not the ones who would be establishing how it was going to be carried out just as those who agitated for ordaining blacks were not the ones who determined how such would be carried out.

[phaedrus ut]

It's a slippery slope. If the church allowed women in the priesthood then next thing you know they'd be having revelations for full participation without discrimination for gay members like the Community of Christ did. Don't be fooled by their more neutral name this is the same RLDS church of Emma Smith that thought polygamy was wrong.

[Calm]

So, it is not just women getting the priesthood but also girls. And yet, I see no mention of girls.

You have not been reading the long term commentary on this subject then. One of the main reasons that this is being pushed is for the benefit of the Young Women in the Church who feel lost without a ritualized role such as the Young Men have that helps define who and what they are in not only the Church, but the world.

[The Nehor]

I find it funny that they felt the need to clarify that they are "non-violent".

[Calm]

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.

Again, one has to only look at the two Official Declarations that deal with two very major issues that were concerns about the Church that the greater society had to determine whether or not the Church could deal effectively with change without completely changing its identity or revelation driven leadership or to avoid the slippery slope that phaedrus refers to.

It is stated in OD 1 that it was outside pressure that drove the revelation from the Lord, just as outside pressure from groups have throughout the scriptures been occasions for the need for revelation from the Lord. It seems strange to me that people would expect that it is when the Church is often most under attack that this is when the Lord would be silent or not direct the Church to change to better meet the need to protect the Church and to help it grow.

[Calm]

I think that most boys and men do not see the priesthood as optional. It is something that is expected of them. And the same would need be for girls and women. A mormon man's identity in the church is with the priesthood. How many mormon women wish to marry a mormon man who has rejected the priesthood?

And yet there are men in the Church that don't hold the priesthood because they choose not to do so. Granted, very few, but they are there...or they may just hold the Aaronic Priesthood, but do not function in that capacity. Just as there are individuals and couples who choose not to attend the temple by their own choice (and not just because they aren't given a temple recommend).

Perhaps ordaining women would have the added benefit of making taking on the Priesthood a more conscious effort rather than just a rite of passage that it is often now.

A mormon man's identity in the church is with the priesthood.

Perhaps another good side benefit of ordaining women would be a removal of the priesthood as the sole source of "identity" for men in the Church. Edited March 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

Because there could still be lessons on how to be good mothers, fathers, wives and husbands, young men and young women, etc. Giving the priesthood to women does not automatically remove their gender.

And yet, the lessons are different for priesthood and relief society. Here is something from the relief society manual:

As women participate in Relief Society, they serve as valiant disciples of Jesus Christ in the work of salvation. Like the women in the ancient Church, they work alongside men who hold the priesthood to increase faith and personal righteousness, strengthen families and homes, and seek out and help those in need. Sister Julie B. Beck, the fifteenth Relief Society general president, taught: “Through Relief Society we practice being disciples of Christ. We learn what He would have us learn, we do what He would have us do, and we become what He would have us become.”¹⁹

http://www.lds.org/relief-society/daughters-in-my-kingdom/manual/relief-society-a-restoration-of-an-ancient-pattern?lang=eng

I think that in the name of equality, the lessons would need to be the same.

[Calm]

I don't think that the women behind the women should be ordained movement see it this way. They see it as one of equality and not one of difference.

So what.

If the ordination of women were to occur through revelation...even if such revelation were sought out due to the question being raised by activist groups...does not mean the Church is required to enact such ordination and what follows according to the wishes of the activist groups. Simply because Church leadership might choose to listen in this one area does not mean they are abdicating their role of leadership over to the pollsters in all things any more than when the Lord told WW that he accepted the members' willingness to continue to suffer due to the persecution of the government over polygyny, but that it was more important that the Church be able to function effectively and thus the Manifesto did not mean that suddenly it was the US government that was running the Church and the leaders were just their puppets.

Nothing that the Ordain Women and other activists groups have done come close to the below:

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

[Calm]

It's a slippery slope. If the church allowed women in the priesthood then next thing you know they'd be having revelations for full participation without discrimination for gay members like the Community of Christ did.

It is only a slippery slope if it isn't left up to God.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

If it is a true revelation, then the Lord will ensure that the Church survives...if it isn't, he will undertake to remove those who attempt to divert the Church from its commitment to the Lord's Will.

[smac97]

Surely it is more important if the action being pressured for is right or wrong?

I disagree. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether LDS women (and girls) should have the priesthood. Personally, I am open to the idea (though I do not think it's part of the Plan). However, this trend of church members resorting to publicity campaigns against the Church is a very troubling, and very wrong, trend.

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?

Not really. God's plan will unfold, but that doesn't mean that the actors participating in that plan are justified in their conduct. Publicly demanding the priesthood is a very troubling thing. And what will happen if the Brethren say no? Will these folks relent? Or will they resort to even more dubious methods to try to get what they want?

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

And yet there are men in the Church that don't hold the priesthood because they choose not to do so. Granted, very few, but they are there...or they may just hold the Aaronic Priesthood, but do not function in that capacity. Just as there are individuals and couples who choose not to attend the temple by their own choice (and not just because they aren't given a temple recommend).

Perhaps ordaining women would have the added benefit of making taking on the Priesthood a more conscious effort rather than just a rite of passage that it is often now.

Perhaps another good side benefit of ordaining women would be a removal of the priesthood as the sole source of "identity" for men in the Church.

Interestingly, when we again have conference, and the brethern address the priesthood, if women also had the priesthood, they would need to have men and women present for the message. The entire cultural norm of the church would need to change. It would be quite an upheaval because the sexes are separated during lds meetings. And it was like this for a reason: because the purposes are different for women and for men.

However, it would certainly be interesting to see it all played out.

[Calm]

I think that in the name of equality, the lessons would need to be the same.

Again, you are assuming that even with a revelation, the change is being driven by activists.

If a revelation was the cause of the change, there is no need to appeal to activists to tell us how to undertake the change...even if the seeking of the revelation was triggered by the work of activists.

[smac97]

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.

An interesting analogy. So the women pushing for the priesthood are engaging in conduct morally equivalent to what the federal government did to the Church in the late 19th century. That's not exactly the best pattern to follow, I think.

-Smac

[why me]

I disagree. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether LDS women (and girls) should have the priesthood. Personally, I am open to the idea (though I do not think it's part of the Plan). However, this trend of church members resorting to publicity campaigns against the Church is a very troubling, and very wrong, trend.

Not really. Publicly demanding the priesthood is a very troubling thing. And what will happen if the Brethren say no? Will these folks relent? Or will they resort to even more dubious methods to try to get what they want?

Thanks,

-Smac

It also goes against paul's warning that the church should be of one mind.

[Calm]

And yet, the lessons are different for priesthood and relief society. Here is something from the relief society manual:

As women participate in Relief Society, they serve as valiant disciples of Jesus Christ in the work of salvation. Like the women in the ancient Church, they work alongside men [who hold the priesthood] to increase faith and personal righteousness, strengthen families and homes, and seek out and help those in need. Sister Julie B. Beck, the fifteenth Relief Society general president, taught: “Through Relief Society we practice being disciples of Christ. We learn what He would have us learn, we do what He would have us do, and we become what He would have us become.”¹⁹

http://www.lds.org/r...attern?lang=eng

I think that in the name of equality, the lessons would need to be the same.

Just remove the section I put in red and it works just fine. Don't forget in the ancient church, most men didn't hold the priesthood so their wives, mothers and daughters were working besides men without that distinction between them.

[smac97]

Again, one has to only look at the two Official Declarations that deal with two very major issues that were concerns about the Church that the greater society had to determine whether or not the Church could deal effectively with change without completely changing its identity or revelation driven leadership or to avoid the slippery slope that phaedrus refers to.

It is stated in OD 1 that it was outside pressure that drove the revelation from the Lord, just as outside pressure from groups have throughout the scriptures been occasions for the need for revelation from the Lord.

"Outside pressure" being the operative word here. I do not think it's part of the Lord's plan for church members to engage in public pressure campaigns against their own church.

It seems strange to me that people would expect that it is when the Church is often most under attack that this is when the Lord would be silent or not direct the Church to change to better meet the need to protect the Church and to help it grow.

I think the Lord guides the Church. I just don't think that this guidance is supposed to be triggered by factions within the church using public pressure tactics which are designed to make the Church look bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 20, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

I disagree.

So you believe that the Church leadership's action involved the Manifesto and removal of polygyny was wrong?

I am not saying that the way activists are currently going about trying to invoke change in the Church is right. Certainly I view the federal government's persecution of the early Saints over plural marriage to be entirely in wrong....and yet the Lord gave a revelation because of that persecution and the Church acted upon it.

[Calm]

"Outside pressure" being the operative word here. I do not think it's part of the Lord's plan for church members to engage in public pressure campaigns against their own church.

I think the Lord guides the Church. I just don't think that this guidance is supposed to be triggered by factions within the church using public pressure tactics which are designed to make the Church look bad.

And I think it does not matter what triggers the guidance from the Lord, we should accept it no matter what. (I am not saying here you are disagreeing with this, I think we are just approaching this from a different angle.)

If that trigger is due to the unworthy actions of members or nonmembers, then they will have to bear the burden of their sins...and I believe they will suffer for it greatly if they don't repent but as a Church we need to be willing to follow the direction of the Lord no matter what it appears like to the outside world, whether it looks like we are stuck in the stone age to them or whether it looks like we are just one of the crowd and giving in to public pressure or somewhere in the middle.

Edited March 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

Again, you are assuming that even with a revelation, the change is being driven by activists.

And the world would see it that way too. So, it is now a no win situation for the church. And perhaps this is the reason for such groups: to create such a situation.

[Calm]

Interestingly, when we again have conference, and the brethern address the priesthood, if women also had the priesthood, they would need to have men and women present for the message.

Well then the brethren can address the brethren of the Church just as there is Women's Conference.