Do We Have A Derelict God???

[Glenn101]

Gosh, I hope that I don't get zapped from above for this, or banned!!! But there is something that bothers me a bit. It was summed up by a poster John C. on the By Common Consent blog "Unequal Equalities" discussing the current hot button topic of gender inequality and women priesthood ordination in the church. His last paragraph reads:

"One last thought: this entire argument is based on the premise that the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire more than it does the will of God. In saying this, I’m not saying that the Brethren aren’t inspired or that the Church is in apostasy. They are bound, just as we are bound, by the society in which we are raised. Peter didn’t imagine extending the Priesthood to the Gentiles until God directly intervened and, frankly, I don’t want or imagine that the Priesthood will be extended to women until something similar happens in the Church. But the possibility is there; with God, nothing is impossible."

I see this same premise implicit in the blogs of so many who are critical of this or that thing about the leadership of the church. But no one of those are really following their assumptions to their logical conclusion, if they believe that the LDS church is in fact the restoration of the Ancient Church of Jesus Christ.

I will only take the current hot button topic, but the same principles apply to other similar areas of controversy. With John C.'s stated premise that "the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire more than it does the will of God" that God is not in control of His church, and that he has not been from the beginning. He is saying by implication, that God has repeatedly called prophets who have been so bound by their culture and tradition, and desires that they refused to do the will of God in this matter and that God has allowed those prophets to perpetuate a huge injustice against women for thousands of years. That either God does not instruct His prophets to cease perpetuating those injustices, or that God does so order His prophets and they ignore His wishes and keep on keeping on their merry old unjust way. In either case, God, as the head of His church, would be derelict.

And I reject that idea. God is not derelict.

Glenn

[Darren10]

And I reject that idea. God is not derelict.

I would agree.

[CASteinman]

"the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire more than it does the will of God"

This quote is packed full with false assumptions, in my opinion.

But the main division of power in the Church is:

Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost

--------------------------------------------

Everyone else.

[Storm Rider]

When reading the first post I reject the premise of John C from a position of perspective, he sees the priesthood solely through a power paradigm. My thoughts and beliefs about the priesthood of God does not include a concept of man having "power" over men or women. I guess it is for this reason that I concur to completely with the scriptures about those who abuse their authority. Who presides at a meeting is not about who is in power. There is so much rebellion in the world and so many call evil good and good evil. Is it any wonder how even the every elect will fall?

[Bikeemikey]

To Storm Rider, CASteinman, Darren10 & Glenn101,

If God revealed in the upcoming conference that women were to have the priesthood would any of you mind or have a problem with it?

Most of the people expressing concern with the current debate have an issue with the process that is being used... very few of them actually care if women have the priesthood or not...

Given that the prophets/apostles won't make any substantial changes without a firm belief god has told them to make the change why do you care about the process/protest over this issue? It is not going to make any difference in church practice or policy unless god tells the leaders to make the change.

[teddyaware]

Generation after succeeding generation of the Lord's people have always had those who've either complained about, murmured against, or outright rejected the living prophets of their day. Inevitably, yet sadly, this sort of thinking and behavior has always been par for the course among some in the Lord's Kingdom. Instead of maintaining a primary focus on continual faithful efforts to magnifiy callings in their own limited spheres of influence and authority, the pride inherent in the natural man motivates these folks to neglect their basic duties, only to waste precious time and energy in foolish and futile efforts to steady the ark of the Church. The Standard works reveal this phenomenon of faithlessness in the earthly leaders of the Lord's kingdom is as common and natural as the darkness of night that follows the brightness of day. Faithless and gainsaying Laman and Lemuel are the quintessential examples of this kind of behavior, where minds that should be firm in the Lord and diligent in attendance to basic spiritual duties are set aside in favor of fruitless quests to slay phantasmic dragons that don't actally exist.

Edited March 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[CASteinman]

Most of the people expressing concern with the current debate have an issue with the process that is being used... very few of them actually care if women have the priesthood or not...

The process being used sort of bothers me. But not really. Really what bugs me is more the attitude behind it and the assumptions.

Do I care if women have the Priesthood... in one way I consider that they actually already have it if they have been endowed and sealed. And that I do not really mind or care. I also do not really have a problem with the idea of them administering ordinances or engaged in service.

But I do have a problem with disbanding the Relief Society -- which would be a logical step -- or integrating men into the Relief Society or integrating women into Priesthood Quorums. I have a problem with women being Bishops. There is more I have a problem with that but that is the essence.

[Alvino]

When reading the first post I reject the premise of John C from a position of perspective, he sees the priesthood solely through a power paradigm. My thoughts and beliefs about the priesthood of God does not include a concept of man having "power" over men or women. I guess it is for this reason that I concur to completely with the scriptures about those who abuse their authority. Who presides at a meeting is not about who is in power. There is so much rebellion in the world and so many call evil good and good evil. Is it any wonder how even the every elect will fall?

I don't know if John C sees the priesthood solely through a power paradigm but you certainly don't need to adopt a 'power-paradigm-only' mentality to agree with him. Even if the priesthood is more than power, even much more than that, one need only say it is a part of it and that is enough to agree with John C. On the other hand, just look at what comes up on 'priesthood' at lds.org:

The priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God. Through the priesthood God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power He redeems and exalts His children, bringing to pass "the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). God gives priesthood authority to worthy male members of the Church so they can act in His name for the salvation of His children. Priesthood holderscan be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern the kingdom of God on the earth.

Sorry that I underlined so much but if you don't see in that power at play then I don't know what to tell you.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

@Glenn101:

You also have to consider that if in the end times the gospel will be brought about in its fullness, then some precious things that were left unsaid will be said. This could be one of them but, basically, for anything new that will be brought about one could be against it for exactly the same reasons you give here for being against the idea that God's will was that women have a much more prominent role in leadership (probably through receiving the priesthood) all along. "Well, how could God keep silent about this issue until now when it seems so game-changing?"

That and other possibilities - such that God isn't particularly concerned with this issue as He is with other more pressing issues so that he can let us figure this out as part of society - show to me that what you take to be 'logical conclusions' just aren't. There is actually quite a bit of leeway for a believer to move about.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Alvino

[urroner]

Every time I hear a discussion like this, I think of 1 Peter 3:8 (KJV)

...love as brethren, be pitiful...

Edited March 27, 2013 by urroner

[Glenn101]

To Storm Rider, CASteinman, Darren10 & Glenn101,

If God revealed in the upcoming conference that women were to have the priesthood would any of you mind or have a problem with it?

Most of the people expressing concern with the current debate have an issue with the process that is being used... very few of them actually care if women have the priesthood or not...

Given that the prophets/apostles won't make any substantial changes without a firm belief god has told them to make the change why do you care about the process/protest over this issue? It is not going to make any difference in church practice or policy unless god tells the leaders to make the change.

If an announcement were to be made in the upcoming General Conference that a revelation had been received that women are to be ordained to the priesthood, I would be happy to raise my hand to support it. My objection is to the basic premise as quoted and its implications which I stated.

Glenn

[Storm Rider]

I don't know if John C sees the priesthood solely through a power paradigm but you certainly don't need to adopt a 'power-paradigm-only' mentality to agree with him. Even if the priesthood is more than power, even much more than that, one need only say it is a part of it and that is enough to agree with John C. On the other hand, just look at what comes up on 'priesthood' at lds.org:

The priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God. Through the priesthood God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power He redeems and exalts His children, bringing to pass "the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). God gives priesthood authority to worthy male members of the Church so they can act in His name for the salvation of His children. Priesthood holderscan be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern the kingdom of God on the earth.

Sorry that I underlined so much but if you don't see in that power at play then I don't know what to tell you.

God is powerful, but he does not use power to achieve his will. That is the context of power I was addressing; it was not to say that power does not play a role within the priesthood. It is this confusion that is being used and, in some ways, I suspect it was not unconsciously being used.

[mercyngrace]

This is a good topic Glenn, with great questions. It raises more questions for me. For example:

Was God derelict in not allowing gentile baptism prior to the revelation to Peter?

Did God not work every bit as much through Cornelius, the gentile, as through Peter in bringing this historic event about? Did God use Cornelius and Peter's circumstance to prepare Peter to receive more light and knowledge?

Was God derelict in allowing the contentions to persist among the early church over circumcision and the law of Moses even after Peter's vision?

Or is it possible that God teaches us correct principles and then lets us govern ourselves until we are ready to receive more at which point, circumstances arise and individuals cross our paths that allow for revelation to be both given and received? I'm inclined to believe this is so rather than, as implied, that God must be falling down on the job.

I don't pretend to know God's will for women in terms of the call for ordination. I'm not even entirely sure how I feel about the issue other than that I will continue to do as the Lord requires, whatever that is. But I will say, that the conclusion that God simply speaks revelation to prophets out of the blue, with no inspiration or prodding coming from other humans and their circumstances is simply not supported by the account in Acts 10. His silence, in my opinion, is more a reflection of who we are, than of who He is or how well He is doing His job.

Edited March 27, 2013 by mercyngrace

[smac97]

First, I am open to the possibility of women receiving the priesthood. My sense is that the restriction against black men holding the priesthood could aptly be described as a reflection of "human culture, tradition, and desire more than . . . the will of God." The absence of scriptural guidance on this point is the principal basis for that conclusion.

Second, in contrast to that circumstance, however, we do have scriptural guidance as to the priesthood being limited to worthy males.

Third, regardless of the merits of the arguments for and against women receiving the priesthood, I strongly dislike the way that proponents of female ordination are carrying out their movement. It is antagonistic. It is adversarial. It is divisive. It is deliberately calculated to foment adverse public opinion against the Church. It is centered on using public opinion to bring about doctrinal innovation rather than prayer, fasting, and righteousness. It cheapens the Church by treating it as merely some social construct rather than what the Church claims to be. It cheapens the priesthood by treating it as a commodity to be haggled over, to be extracted from the Brethren by compulsion and coercion, but to taken upon by agitators demanding it in contravention of Hebrews 5:4.

Thanks,

-Smac

[David T]

For the record, canonically, Jesus told all the apostles before his ascension to Go Ye Into All The World, and share the gospel with every creature. (Mark 16:15). That includes Gentiles. It apparently took recording of another revelation directly to Peter to finally kick them into gear to realize he meant what he said the first time.

Meanwhile, there was infighting and disagreement about it, and apparently mischaracterization of the expressed will of God. Even though we see recorded that the Church leadership should have already been aware of the counsel.

History aside, that's how the canonical scriptures currently present the chronology of the story. And I think it can be instructive.

Edited March 27, 2013 by David T

[Yep]

"One last thought: this entire argument is based on the premise that the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire more than it does the will of God."

It seems to me that this statement is not true. I don't feel that "the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire."

It seems to me that there is a push for "the current gender division of power in the church [to reflect] human culture, tradition, and desire."

Isn't the argument presented here backwards? Our culture, tradition and desire is currently pushing for a shift in gender roles.

Did I misunderstand what was written?

[Alvino]

God is powerful, but he does not use power to achieve his will.

But God uses the priesthood to achieve his will and the priesthood is power. So, God uses power to achieve his will.

That is the context of power I was addressing; it was not to say that power does not play a role within the priesthood.

Not only does it play a role, it is power and authority.

Maybe you are thinking of 'power' as forcing people? If so, that is a very simplistic way of looking at power and that's definitely not what people who discuss power inequalities between the genders really mean.

[Alvino]

It seems to me that this statement is not true. I don't feel that "the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire."

Glenn101 wasn't arguing that "the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire" is correct; he was arguing against it or at least some problems with it.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Alvino

[Glenn101]

This is a good topic Glenn, with great questions. It raises more questions for me. For example:

Was God derelict in not allowing gentile baptism prior to the revelation to Peter?

Did God not work every bit as much through Cornelius, the gentile, as through Peter in bringing this historic event about? Did God use Cornelius and Peter's circumstance to prepare Peter to receive more light and knowledge?

Was God derelict in allowing the contentions to persist among the early church over circumcision and the law of Moses even after Peter's vision?

Or is it possible that God teaches us correct principles and then lets us govern ourselves until we are ready to receive more at which point, circumstances arise and individuals cross our paths that allow for revelation to be both given and received? I'm inclined to believe this is so rather than, as implied, that God must be falling down on the job.

I don't pretend to know God's will for women in terms of the call for ordination. I'm not even entirely sure how I feel about the issue other than that I will continue to do as the Lord requires, whatever that is. But I will say, that the conclusion that God simply speaks revelation to prophets out of the blue, with no inspiration or prodding coming from other humans and their circumstances is simply not supported by the account in Acts 10. His silence, in my opinion, is more a reflection of who we are, than of who He is or how well He is doing His job.

Thanks for chiming in. No, I do not think that God was, is, or ever will be derelict. However it is evident that God does many things without giving us a reason as to why. He offered no reason when He removed the priesthood from among the general population after the Exodus from Egypt. The situation with women and the priesthood is another example (and the current hot topic).

What I am against is the premise that since it grates against the sensibilities of some, against what they consider to be fair and just, that it must be unfair and unjust and that the fault must lie with a leadership that is unresponsive, culturally bound, or bound by their own desires which keeps them from addressing God with the question (and asking the question in the correct manner, according to some).

I agree completely with your assessment that God does not always send a revelation completely out of the blue, but is in response to prayers coming from humans. However, to assert that God will let an injustice be instituted and perpetuated in His church over centuries, even mellenia, as is the case with the priesthood, when God is perfectly capable of making a course correction would make God a derelict God, since this is His Church and the apostles and prophets have been called of God from the very beginning.

God has shown that He is cognizant of the actions of His chosen prophets and willing to initiate a course correction and maybe not so very subtly. The case of Jonah is one very prominant example. The case of Eli in the Book of Samuel is another. God also made a course correction in the case of Balaam. He was about to make a drasticcourse correction in the case of Moses because Moses had not circumcised one of his children. His wife, Zipporah saved him by performing the act herself (with some choice words for her husband). That same God always has been capable of issuing a course correction to his latter-day prophets and apostles. I doubt that any of them would argue with Him, although they may reason with Him as did Moses on a couple of occastions.

So, I accept the words of former President Hinckley when he said the current situation with the priesthood is the way that "God has put it." However, I also think that it is possible that God can change that. The scriptures that we have tell us how things were are are now. The prophets can tell us how things will be and change such a policy through revelation. But right now, I believe it is God's policy and he is not derelict.

Glenn

[blackstrap]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument , that the current culture desires of same sex marriage,even ss temple marriage,and ordination of women are accepted by the leadership and membership of the church. What might be the next push? How about the church follow the Roman temple tradition of temple prostitutes. Or perhaps we could adopt the Baal worshipers culture of child sacrifice seeing that current culture shows little regard for fetuses it would not be too large a stretch. How long before the abominations of the Nephites engulf our worship ? History provides examples of just how novel and innovating worship can become

given enough 'cultural' pressure.

The Book of Mormon was written as a witness of Christ , but also as a guide and a warning to our day. Read it , and weep .

[Yep]

Glenn101 wasn't arguing that "the current gender division of power in the church reflects human culture, tradition, and desire" is correct; he was arguing against it or at least some problems with it.

Thanks. That makes more sense. I don't know why I was misreading it.