The "Ordain Women" Website

[why me]

I don't know about 'many' but i have personally spoken with quite a few women for whom it would be a trial of faith if the priesthood were extended to them.

It's good for all of us, myself and women like your wife, to remember that just because something is obvious to us doesn't mean there aren't rational, spiritual people who sincerely disagree and think that we are the crazy ones.

Thank you for this. It seems that some people may not be aware that many women just may see the ordination of women as buckling under society pressure and a betrayal. I do believe that the upheaval that this would cause would be deep and severe, especially if girls and women need to accept the priesthood calling just as boys and men do---something that they can refuse and yet, they are expected to accept.

[bluebell]

Thank you for this. It seems that some people may not be aware that many women just may see the ordination of women as buckling under society pressure and a betrayal.

I do think for the majority of these women, that this is the issue-they truly see the ordination of women as doctrinally unsound and therefore, it would be very difficult for them to accept it.

I do believe that the upheaval that this would cause would be deep and severe, especially if girls and women need to accept the priesthood calling just as boys and men do---something that they can refuse and yet, they are expected to accept.

It might, but the reality is, if it is really the Lord's will to give women the priesthood, then those women would need to get over their objections and align themselves with Him, regardless of how difficult it would initially be (just like if it's not God's will, then those who want women to be ordained will need to get over their objections and move forward embracing a male only priesthood).

That is how discipleship works-we must accept God's will because refusing it will be detrimental to us, regardless of our justifications.

Edited March 21, 2013 by bluebell

[wenglund]

Yeah, I don't get into that militaristic Baptist hymn much. I didn't say we were led by popular culture, at least that is not what I meant, but I do believe that some parts of popular culture are led by Christ or at least influenced by Him. I don't believe that His influence is restricted solely to the Church.

You nailed it. Christ is now at the helm of the New York Times and NBC and the like, and his influence is unmistakable in programs like 2 1/2 Men and the Bill Maher Show, etc. The still small voice has inspired such noble trends like abortion, homosexuality, sexting, government dependency, etc.

These are all areas where the Church is obviously lagging, and since Christ was so daft as to call leaders who are highly resistant to bending their will to his, and since the world is some much more inclined to humbly submit to Christ will, the Saviour is now inspiring pop culture in so many wonderful ways in hopes that it will put pressure on the resistant Church leaders to eventually come around to what Christ desires for them.

Now, while I may be joking about this, I suspect that much of this rings true with Stone and others. Not only is this way of thinking becoming the "new normal," but for some it appears to be the new gospel.

I am so proud to be living in these times of elevating change. I can't wait to tune out on Conference and tune into Steven Colbert.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 21, 2013 by wenglund

[Mark Beesley]

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?

Don

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. <remove tongue from cheek>

[Stone holm]

You nailed it. Christ is now at the helm of the New York Times and NBC and the like, and his influence is unmistakable in programs like 2 1/2 Men and the Bill Maher Show, etc. The still small voice has inspired such noble trend like abortion, homosexuality, sexting, government dependency, etc.

These are all areas the where the Church is obviously lagging, and since Christ was so daft as to call leaders who are highly resistant to bending their will to his, and since the world is some much more inclined to humbly submit to Christ will, the Saviour is now inspiring pop culture in so many wonderful ways in hopes that it will put pressure on the resistant Church leaders to eventually come around to what Christ desires for them.

Now, while I may be joking about this, I suspect that much of this rings true with Stone and others. Not only is it this way of thinking becoming the "new normal," but for some it appears to be the new gospel.

I am so proud to be living in these times of elevating change. I can't wait to tune out on Conference and tune into Steven Colbert.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Culture involves more than just pop culture. The culture of America until the 1960's was predominantly racist, you don't think Christ had a hand in changing that? If you don't then we have such radical differences of opinions concerning the Savior that dialogue is probably not possible. I believe He did play a role in that, and I also believe the Church did not, but rather lagged behind that change. That lag time allowed many members and some leaders the opportunity to extract their heads from a very dark place.

[tyler90az]

This is already a de facto reality in a lot of ways, without formalizing it. Prior to my release as bishop, the stake president went over possible "successors" with me to get my input. A major factor with many men who would otherwise have been outstanding bishops were their limitations based on their wives. When you call a bishop, you are actually getting a "package deal" with the bishop's wife as well. Some wives cannot handle the time and emotional demands of a 5+ year tour of duty, and this should (and usually is) be factored into the calculus.

While not privy to confidential information, the bishop's wife functions (or should, ideally, in my book) as an informal but important "counselor" as well. My wife was an invaluable sounding board for ideas and proposed callings for some people, a valuable data point along with the formal counselors.

I think this state of things works well just as it is (informal, rather than wives being formally sustained), and I don't see any need or advantage in changing it.

How was she your counselor when you could not discuss what happens in ward council or personal meetings? From what I understand the policy is a Bishop should not discuss that with his wife. This could get even better, the wives should interview the young females for worthiness. By doing that you also take the heavy deamands off a sole person.

That is one thing I tend to disagree with about the church. Although I understand not telling your wife about private meetings or ward councils. That is keeping something from the preson who you should ideally trust more then anyone else. It seems like it would create a division anything that happens in the church or the Temple should be shared between both. Imagine the communication and trust that could be built in such a delicate relationship. I do not think discussing scriptures together is enough to form strong communications skills between a couple, although it helps. It feels like sometimes that is what the church promotes, just discuss scriptures and communication skills within your marriage will be great.

[rongo]

How was she your counselor

She wasn't. Note that I said "informal."

when you could not discuss what happens in ward council or personal meetings? From what I understand the policy is a Bishop should not discuss that with his wife.

Quite a bit can be discussed from ward council meetings, depending on what it is. Especially when she is also a member of the YW or RS presidency . . .

This could get even better, the wives should interview the young females for worthiness.

Completely disagree with this. So do all of the sisters in leadership whom my wife and I have talked about this notion with (in the course of conversation as friends).

By doing that you also take the heavy demands off a sole person.

I think the type of man you look for as a priesthood leader is the kind who can be given heavy demands for a "tour of duty" without feeling overwhelmed and overburdened. Or, who can handle it if he does feel that way. I don't feel that it is appropriate to "share the wealth" to lighten the load such that it cheapens and dillutes the common judge in Israel into a committee.

[why me]

start ordering door locks. this church is late, or conservative, but usually bends and adapts to social pressure. if it were not the case, we would still be an all-white bunch of polygamists.

other examples of the church changing in response to social pressure - the temple ceremony/language has been changed multiple times in response to massive social pressure, the shape of garments, and recently the headings and some language in the scriptures were changed because of outside commentary and pressure.

I don't see this as buckling under social pressure. I don't even see the ending of polygamy as buckling under social pressure. That was more of survival since the barbarians were at the gates again ready to stomp on the mormons in utah. And the blacks and the priesthood was being actively discussed years before 1978. Women receiving the priesthood would send a shock wave through the church and leave many women, such as my young adult daughters confused.

[Stone holm]

How was she your counselor when you could not discuss what happens in ward council or personal meetings? From what I understand the policy is a Bishop should not discuss that with his wife. This could get even better, the wives should interview the young females for worthiness. By doing that you also take the heavy deamands off a sole person.

That is one thing I tend to disagree with about the church. Although I understand not telling your wife about private meetings or ward councils. That is keeping something from the preson who you should ideally trust more then anyone else. It seems like it would create a division anything that happens in the church or the Temple should be shared between both. Imagine the communication and trust that could be built in such a delicate relationship. I do not think discussing scriptures together is enough to form strong communications skills between a couple, although it helps. It feels like sometimes that is what the church promotes, just discuss scriptures and communication skills within your marriage will be great.

Received similar counsel when I was Bishop -- there were some things you did not share (like disciplinary proceedings), but they frequently counsel new Bishops about using their wives as counselors. And he is absolutely correct that they consider the wife very carefully and sometimes reject a name from consideration from the selection. There are also a variety of unpublished bureaucratic rules of thumb that come into play as well -- which unfortunately, they don't always inform the Stake President of like how much time has elapse since the man was divorced, etc. which sometimes wastes the time of the Stake President who is trying to come up with a name to recommend -- so the process can be something like a game of ping pong until the Stake President finally asks, okay what are the rules....I've watched it and scratched my head in amazement.

[Calm]

By doing that you also take the heavy deamands off a sole person.

If by demands you mean time...I have yet to meet a bishop's wife who wasn't pretty much already booked 24/7 just like her husband. Perhaps an older bishop whose children are already grown so the bishop's wife only has to be mother to the ward, not her own kids as well. You might be making the bishop's life easier, but you also might be making his wife's almost unmanageable.

[Calm]

Women receiving the priesthood would send a shock wave through the church and leave many women, such as my young adult daughters confused.

That is assuming it is given shortly. If it is discussed now for years, it will have the same type of preparation as lifting the ban of the priesthood for blacks.

[Stone holm]

That is assuming it is given shortly. If it is discussed now for years, it will have the same type of preparation as lifting the ban of the priesthood for blacks.

Absolutely agree, but you said it oh so much more nicely than I.

[Mayan Elephant]

You nailed it. Christ is now at the helm of the New York Times and NBC and the like, and his influence is unmistakable in programs like 2 1/2 Men and the Bill Maher Show, etc. The still small voice has inspired such noble trend like abortion, homosexuality, sexting, government dependency, etc.

Wade, are you whining? what is your point? do you think bill maher is for equal rights because that is popular, or do you think bill maher is popular because he sinfully supports equal rights? what the hell is your point?

you seem to think the church should publicly fight to eliminate homosexuality, continue to shock the testicles of men in the basements of BYU buildings, kick young gays off of campus, and make sure the church is run exclusively by men that think like you. maybe you should say it more articulately without these obscure references to charlie sheen and bill maher.

be careful to not take any offense to these comments, after all, I was not the one that said that your Lord and Savior was producing sitcoms.

Take a break.

[Stone holm]

Wade, are you whining? what is your point? do you think bill maher is for equal rights because that is popular, or do you think bill maher is popular because he sinfully supports equal rights? what the hell is your point?

you seem to think the church should publicly fight to eliminate homosexuality, continue to shock the testicles of men in the basements of BYU buildings, kick young gays off of campus, and make sure the church is run exclusively by men that think like you. maybe you should say it more articulately without these obscure references to charlie sheen and bill maher.

be careful to not take any offense to these comments, after all, I was not the one that said that your Lord and Savior was producing sitcoms.

Oops. The elephant just went rogue....lol...

[Storm Rider]

start ordering door locks. this church is late, or conservative, but usually bends and adapts to social pressure. if it were not the case, we would still be an all-white bunch of polygamists.

other examples of the church changing in response to social pressure - the temple ceremony/language has been changed multiple times in response to massive social pressure, the shape of garments, and recently the headings and some language in the scriptures were changed because of outside commentary and pressure.

Do you have any support for those statements or is that just an opinion?

[Storm Rider]

Oh but its not polite to point out such things. Nice handle, do you remember when they used to decorate chapels with Mayan calendars -- guess that isn't fashionable any more.

It was strictly a social pressure thing. That is why we still build gyms, still use the name of the church, still don't drink or smoke, still think the ideal family includes both a mom and a dad, you know, all those passé things that society tells us are so right with the world. Boy that social pressure is amazing isn't it. Whoohoo, women should burn their bras and you know how we supported the ERA. Don't stop me know or I may get on a roll.

[Stone holm]

It was strictly a social pressure thing. That is why we still build gyms, still use the name of the church, still don't drink or smoke, still think the ideal family includes both a mom and a dad, you know, all those passé things that society tells us are so right with the world. Boy that social pressure is amazing isn't it. Whoohoo, women should burn their bras and you know how we supported the ERA. Don't stop me know or I may get on a roll.

Yeah, I remember the ERA fight. Supported the Church's position which I think was really anticipating what was going to happen with gay rights more than they were worried about women's rights. And they are talking about reviving the ERA fight, and if it does get revived, my guess is the Church would take a much, much more muted tone, but you never know. Yeah, I don't think the issue of ordaining women has much, if anything to do with an ideal family including a Mother and Father -- I don't think that is going to change period because our doctrine on the hereafter is very clear on that issue and built into the very structure of our theology. Not exactly sure what it has to do with building gyms, did you think that was srictly so boys could shoot baskets? I don't think so. As for the drinking and smoking, that actually proves the opposite side of the argument. Why? Because the W of W was originally not presented as a commandment, and it took a long time for the culture to develop away from drinking and smoking before it became a commandment -- many of the early leaders of the Church including both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young continued to use long after the W of W. I wouldn't refer to it as social pressure, more like cultural pressure -- the Church always exists within a culture and in most instances absorbs that culture. As the culture changes, then it is sometimes difficult to sort out what was culture and what was doctrine -- and if it is an issue that draws strong emotions like say racism and sexism -- then it is no small task to effect change.

[wenglund]

Culture involves more than just pop culture. The culture of America until the 1960's was predominantly racist, you don't think Christ had a hand in changing that? If you don't then we have such radical differences of opinions concerning the Savior that dialogue is probably not possible. I believe He did play a role in that, and I also believe the Church did not, but rather lagged behind that change. That lag time allowed many members and some leaders the opportunity to extract their heads from a very dark place.

Yes...we have radically different opinions (upside-down from each other)--likely due to our radically different perceptions of the gospel and likely due to the radically different people in whom we place our trust and look to for leadership. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, are you whining?

No. I am doing an illuminating parody of asinine thinking. I would have thought that was obvious. Since it wasn't obvious to you, that explains you response.

what is your point?

If it wasn't obvious, then you aren't in a position to get it. Sorry.

do you think bill maher is for equal rights because that is popular, or do you think bill maher is popular because he sinfully supports equal rights? what the hell is your point?

My point had entirely nothing to do with why Bill Maher is popular. That you would ask, against all that was obvious in what I actually said, again evinces a sufficient lack of awareness to suggest you haven't even the least chance of cluing in to my point. And, that is okay.

you seem to think the church should publicly fight to eliminate homosexuality, continue to shock the testicles of men in the basements of BYU buildings, kick young gays off of campus, and make sure the church is run exclusively by men that think like you. maybe you should say it more articulately without these obscure references to charlie sheen and bill maher.

I wasn't aware that is what I thought. But, in this upside-down world, you would know better then me what I think.

...be careful to not take any offense to these comments, after all, I was not the one that said that your Lord and Savior was producing sitcoms.

I tend not to be offended with people who unwittingly underscore the point of my parody. Instead, I may wish to thank them (and you) for the added entertainment value. So,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

That is assuming it is given shortly. If it is discussed now for years, it will have the same type of preparation as lifting the ban of the priesthood for blacks.

I don't see any discussion so far. But we also need to remember that the priesthood was opened up for all worthy males. And blacks already had the priesthood during joseph's time. We can say that it was restored to them and this is much different from the woman's issue.

[Calm]

What do you mean? There has been discussion out there about women getting the Priesthood at least since the ERA.

If you mean among church leadership, I would suggest that the past discussions of whether or not blacks were to get the priesthood or not were for the most part in private and the only public comments were "not yet" or "we haven't found evidence supporting removing the ban"....both of which have been pretty much said about women in the Priesthood for years already.

We can say that it was restored to them and this is much different from the woman's issue.

There are some who claim that the priesthood was given to women in the past, at least a form of it. And women certainly have a greater level of priestesshood already by virtue of what goes on in the temple.

There were many who claimed that Joseph gave in error those few blacks who had the priesthood originally. Others argued against that idea. Sounds a lot like what is being argued about women these days.

IF the Priesthood ends up being given to women in this lifetime (personally I am with those who see a different type of Priesthood being given to both men and women as opposed to the MP and the AP and would actually prefer that....if that was God's Will of course), I don't see it happening for probably about 20 years or more. During that time more visible positions and such will likely be given to women to perform as well as more involvement in ward and stake councils...whether or not the Priesthood ends up being given as well. And more emphasis on the promises made in the temple to women and the ability to give blessings of faith, etc. could be taught as well to both men and women, thus creating an expectation of something more to come whether in this life or the next. Thus it will be adjusted to probably as smoothly as giving the Priesthood to blacks even though it had been taught in the past that blacks would not receive the Priesthood until 'all the sons of Abel' had their chance, which was interpreted by those I knew as the gospel having been taught throughout the world to all who desired it...which it has not been done yet.

Edited March 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

other examples of the church changing in response to social pressure - the temple ceremony/language has been changed multiple times in response to massive social pressure,

CFR, please.

Permit me to anticipate the usual two-step: I know all about the changes to the Temple ordinances. Merely waving a hand at those changes will not support your argument. Please substantiate your claim of "massive social pressure."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

CFR, please.

Permit me to anticipate the usual two-step: I know all about the changes to the Temple ordinances. Merely waving a hand at those changes will not support your argument. Please substantiate your claim of "massive social pressure."

Regards,

Pahoran

You know he can't do that without violating guidelines about discussing Temple Endowments. Of course such occurred in the 1980's just ask an older member next time you are in the Celestial room.

[Stone holm]

What do you mean? There has been discussion out there about women getting the Priesthood at least since the ERA.

If you mean among church leadership, I would suggest that the past discussions of whether or not blacks were to get the priesthood or not were for the most part in private and the only public comments were "not yet" or "we haven't found evidence supporting removing the ban"....both of which have been pretty much said about women in the Priesthood for years already.

There are some who claim that the priesthood was given to women in the past, at least a form of it. And women certainly have a greater level of priestesshood already by virtue of what goes on in the temple.

There were many who claimed that Joseph gave in error those few blacks who had the priesthood originally. Others argued against that idea. Sounds a lot like what is being argued about women these days.

IF the Priesthood ends up being given to women in this lifetime (personally I am with those who see a different type of Priesthood being given to both men and women as opposed to the MP and the AP and would actually prefer that....if that was God's Will of course), I don't see it happening for probably about 20 years or more. During that time more visible positions and such will likely be given to women to perform as well as more involvement in ward and stake councils...whether or not the Priesthood ends up being given as well. And more emphasis on the promises made in the temple to women and the ability to give blessings of faith, etc. could be taught as well to both men and women, thus creating an expectation of something more to come whether in this life or the next. Thus it will be adjusted to probably as smoothly as giving the Priesthood to blacks even though it had been taught in the past that blacks would not receive the Priesthood until 'all the sons of Abel' had their chance, which was interpreted by those I knew as the gospel having been taught throughout the world to all who desired it...which it has not been done yet.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought that up, and there is increasing reporting that references to Heavenly Mother were even more prevalent in the early Church at the meridian of time along with women playing prominent leadership roles.

[mercyngrace]

You would know better than me whether I accurately represent your posts. If I have misunderstood them (and I will take your word for it), it wasn't intentional.

However, I believe my sarcastic point is valid and worthy of mention whether it applies to your posts, in part or whole, or not. Consider your posts as but a catalyst for expressing my thoughts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair enough, Wade.

The catalyst for my thoughts on the matter came from the words attributed to Gamaliel in Acts 5:

And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

I recognize that there some movements against which we have an obligation to fight. I'm just not entirely sure this particular one rises to that level. Is it a sin for women to desire the priesthood? Are the women sinful for questioning their lot? For wanting what they perceive as more than they've been given? Was the Samarian woman sinning when she asked for scraps from the children's table or did the Lord justify her desires even though to do so was to step outside the order of things at the time? Even if the desire for priesthood ordination is misplaced, could it be out of devotion or misunderstanding, as was Peter's desire to have the Lord wash not only his feet but his head and hands also?

These are not meant to be provocative questions or leading in any way. They are simply the thoughts that have come to mind as I've considered this topic today. And that's why I take, as Smac put it, a laissez-faire approach. If the desire in these women is right, it will be honored by God. If it isn't, it won't and the movement, like so many others, will come to nought.

Edited March 22, 2013 by mercyngrace