Why Are We Upset That Some Women Want The Priesthood?

[Shanky82]

20 more posts and you can edit...

Yay!

[Shanky82]

There is a way that I agree with you.

Care to elaborate. I've read your posts in other threads. You impress me as someone that I could have an intellegent conversation with.

[CASteinman]

Care to elaborate.

Well, mainly its this: I seriously read the "Ordain Women" website. Some of the people can be dismissed as fringe harpies. But not most. There are some serious -- and seriously sincere and devoted women on that website.

This caused me to really reflect and ponder upon the matter. I have been generally neutral on the issue -- slightly opposed but perhaps for reasons that are irrelevant.

Then after pondering this deeply and praying for understanding, I had a vivid dream. Which is actually not that common for me -- I sleep like a dead man. But this was vivid. And I do not want to go into details (because I am not sure I am allowed to) but I saw consequences of ordaining women that made me very sad -- almost to tears. It looked to me like a serious step backward for the Church at this time. Maybe some future time -- I do not know -- but it looked like a disaster to me. I would not say I was told it was Good or Bad but shown some of the effects and I was very sad. It was distressing.

I would say that there is a degree of overlap in what was in my dream and what you said. But that is why I was a bit restrictive in my agreement. Because its only a certain degree of overlap. I would say -- I "felt" more like I agreed with an overall sense of what your words said than with the specifics of your post. In particular, I believe that the "inequality" you describe would be handled easily in an administrative manner -- but that the result would be a serious diminishment of the good that the Church and Gospel do in the world now. I think it would take us decades to recover in our Mission to Prepare for the Second Coming. I am not sure we would recover.

And this all makes me feel that the Lord will not be making this change.

Edited March 28, 2013 by CASteinman

[Shanky82]

Well, mainly its this: I seriously read the "Ordain Women" website. Some of the people can be dismissed as fringe harpies. But not most. There are some serious -- and seriously sincere and devoted women on that website.

This caused me to really reflect and ponder upon the matter. I have been generally neutral on the issue -- slightly opposed but perhaps for reasons that are irrelevant.

Then after pondering this deeply and praying for understanding, I had a vivid dream. Which is actually not that common for me -- I sleep like a dead man. But this was vivid. And I do not want to go into details (because I am not sure I am allowed to) but I saw consequences of ordaining women that made me very sad -- almost to tears. It looked to me like a serious step backward for the Church at this time. Maybe some future time -- I do not know -- but it looked like a disaster to me. I would not say I was told it was Good or Bad but shown some of the effects and I was very sad. It was distressing.

I would say that there is a degree of overlap in what was in my dream and what you said. But that is why I was a bit restrictive in my agreement. Because its only a certain degree of overlap. I would say -- I "felt" more like I agreed with an overall sense of what your words said than with the specifics of your post. In particular, I believe that the "inequality" you describe would be handled easily in an administrative manner -- but that the result would be a serious diminishment of the good that the Church and Gospel do in the world now. I think it would take us decades to recover in our Mission to Prepare for the Second Coming. I am not sure we would recover.

And this all makes me feel that the Lord will not be making this change.

Thank you for responding. I caught earlier in this thread that you mentioned having a dream. You don't to go into any detail about something that is sacred and meant for you. I was just curious what you meant by "there is a way", but you clarified what you meant. As far as this discussion is concerned, I don't think that everyone who is supportive of women being ordained are unfaithful members of the Church or lacking in a testamony. I think that many are sincer in their oppinions. Like you said, a few are fringe, but most are faithful.

[why me]

I would disapprove but I would be interesting to watch people navigate the change and look on women's faces when they need to sit in Elder's Quorum and Relief Society is done away with. Also, it would be interesting seeing mothers giving the priesthood to their daughters. But...the upheaval would be so deep and strong that I think that many members would fall away and join the catholic church or become agnostic.

For such a change to happen, there would need to be some discussion beforehand to soothe out the transition process.

Edited March 28, 2013 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Thank you for responding. I caught earlier in this thread that you mentioned having a dream. You don't to go into any detail about something that is sacred and meant for you. I was just curious what you meant by "there is a way", but you clarified what you meant. As far as this discussion is concerned, I don't think that everyone who is supportive of women being ordained are unfaithful members of the Church or lacking in a testamony. I think that many are sincer in their oppinions. Like you said, a few are fringe, but most are faithful.

I don't think being a faithful member results in proper choices in all things. How is it in the latter days that even the very elect of God may be deceived and fall? I believe the CofC example is pertinent to the discussion. This is a church that began to react to the whims of individuals and began ordaining women, which is only one of the many steps they made away from God. What is so interesting is that their membership dropped precipitously, which conflicts with their objective of becoming more acceptable to individuals. Too many of us want an easy life. We want to always sit down at the table to a full meal of all that is pleasing to the senses. Too few us understand or appreciate that the purpose of fasting is multifaceted. We seek to overcome the desires of the flesh for the purpose of gaining a closer relationship with God. What does it mean to deny the flesh? What does it mean to seek the will of God? I have lived for many decades and I have yet to meet an individual that was not humbled by accepting to adhere to the will of our Father in Heaven rather than to follow the desires of their own heart. We have faithful members who seek and make poor choices all the time. Thankfully, the cycle is that we seek after our own desires, fall, repent, and then return to a more full relationship with God.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But...the upheaval would be so deep and strong that I think that many members would fall away and join the catholic church or become agnostic.

I think you would be surprised. The Saints I know are committed first and foremost to the revealed word of God.

[why me]

I think you would be surprised. The Saints I know are committed first and foremost to the revealed word of God.

But it must look like the revealed word of God. And if this announcement came at GC in April, it would not seem like that at all. But the shock of it would send many into a tailspin from which they may never recover and I am speaking of the women in the church. Like I said, the upheaval when all are in elders quorum, both men and women and the disbanding of the relief society as it now stands, would be a shock and awe experience for many women. And we are also speaking about girls too. Also, most men do not refuse the priesthood and this would also have to be the same with the girls and women. This is not be something that 40 or 60 percent could opt out of. It would not work if this were the case.

Edited March 28, 2013 by why me

[Hamba Tuhan]

But it must look like the revealed word of God.

It would have nothing to do with how things might 'look'. Revelation from the Lord comes with its own divine confirming power that speaks peace to the soul of the hearer. Many times, with things both big and small, I've found myself 'converted' in an instant as that power has touched me.

Eight years ago, we learnt that our stake president was moving; consequently, he was going to be released at our next stake conference. The weekend before the conference, I travelled to the temple with a mate and his wife and a single sister from their ward. In the car, the conversation turned to who might be the next stake president, and the single sister said that it would be J--- L-----, then serving as the first counsellor in the stake presidency. I felt physically ill at the thought and had to close my eyes and think 'happy thoughts'.

Our stake president and his other counsellor had been nightmarish in their callings. On one occasion, the stake president held a YSA fireside that I'd attended, and he spent the entire time telling us precisely how we needed to vote in the upcoming national election. I agreed, by the way, with his 'recommendations', but I knew enough Church policy to understand that what he was doing was wrong. I was too stunned to say anything, but one of the YSA girls was more sensible and said she disagreed with what he was doing, at which point he attempted to bully her into silence, suggesting that she was a 'rebellious' Latter-day Saint.

The counsellor had been even worse. He was an angry, controlling, pathetic man. I could share numerous illustrations, but the one that still haunts me to this day happened at an earlier stake conference. I'd been assigned to home-teach two brothers, both relatively new converts who'd slipped into inactivity. My companion and I worked with them for months to help them desire to come back to church, and we were thrilled when they told us that they'd decided to attend the adult session of the stake conference. At the session, this counsellor in the stake presidency, when he got up to talk, pointed his finger at both brothers and criticised the way they were dressed, asking them from the pulpit why they didn't have enough 'respect' to show up dressed in suits and ties. We never saw them at church again, and they've moved away now. As you can imagine, I was horrified and angry and, again, quite literally sick.

As a consequence of these experiences and many others like them, I didn't have much love for my stake presidency, and I was actually relieved when I heard that Pres H------- was moving away because I hoped that it would give us a chance to start afresh in our stake and hopefully begin doing things the Lord's way. (Unsurprisingly, our stake was dying at the time.) In retrospect, I hadn't had any bad experiences with the other counsellor, but in my head he was just one more part of a toxic stake presidency, and that's why I was sick at the thought of his being called as stake president. I assumed that he would simply carry on the legacy of the other two men with whom he'd been serving.

I actually -- for the first time in my life -- decided that, if he were called, I'd have to raise my hand in dissent. That made me nervous, but I knew I'd have to do it. I knew that I'd be asked to visit with the presiding authority, and I had plans to mention a few of the things that had been happening and why I was concerned about our stake leadership not taking a new direction. Needless to say, I was not looking forward to conference.

Sunday morning came, and I was on the stand because I'd been strong-armed into 'singing' in the YSA choir. It came time to release the serving stake presidency and call the new stake president, and I held my breath out of fear. The visiting area authority then announced that J--- L----- had indeed been called as the new president of our stake. And all in an instant, I was at complete peace. Complete and utter. No fear. No concerns. No worries. No reservations. No hesitation. I found myself sticking my hand up in the air in support of his calling with an enthusiasm and excitement I can't recall ever having had before or since. In a way I simply can't explain, I comprehended fully that this call was from God.

And Pres L----- has been simply brilliant in his leadership of the stake. Though I didn't know it at the time, he wasn't like those other two men at all. He has led us with love and kindness and patience and generosity. I served with him for two years, and he treated me like a son, praising every little thing I did right and even protecting me on occasion from those who said unkind things about or to me. Under his leadership, our stake has recovered its strength, and it has grown like mad. The sacrament meeting attendance in our ward has doubled in the past eight years. The number of ward members with temple recommends has more than doubled. And so on.

But I didn't know -- or even expect -- any of that when this man's calling was announced. What I knew -- vehemently -- was that I couldn't sustain him as my priesthood leader. And then the Spirit convinved me otherwise, all in an instant, and I could. And did. And still do.

Whatever changes the Lord may have in place for His Saints, we'll be fine.

I'm not as convinced that those who wish for the Lord to adopt their personal agendas will be as fine if changes don't come.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[BlueDreams]

I put neutral, because I'd most likely have mixed emotions about it. I'd accept it, of course, but I'd be uncertain about the practical implications it would have on the church. I think it would be problematic in many ways. I honestly don't see it happening anytime soon because there are currently more problems to having it than I could see it fixing.

Of course, I have very limited vision...which is why I would accept those called to receive revelation for the whole church.

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

If we accept (and I suppose we do) that women don't need to be ordained to be exalted, then exactly what is the issue here?

Regards,

Pahoran

The women folk don't need to hold the Priesthood in order to be exalted. However they must accept virtually the same obligations as us men folk do in the Temple Endowment.

[Bikeemikey]

I voted disapproval /upset not because I would be against it. I voted disapproval because it would mean that women in the Church would have twice as many responsiblities as we men. Extending the priesthood to women wouldn't make us equal; it would make us unequal by creating an uneven burden on the women in the Church. The commandment to get married and have children would still be in force and I highly doubt that the Lord would give a revelation telling us me to stop working. The role cannot be inter changeable for obvious biological reasons.

Could you please provide some additional information as to how you came to this conclusion... How would they end up with more responsibilities?

[Bikeemikey]

But that is not how the poll is written up. I answered the Poll Question for the poll.

That is clearly the intention of the poll... the opening post makes clear that a statement in conference would only be a possibility if revelation had preceded it.

It is one thing to read to much into what is written... however, it seems to you consciously not reading the poll in the context of the opening post.

[Bikeemikey]

I would disapprove but I would be interesting to watch people navigate the change and look on women's faces when they need to sit in Elder's Quorum and Relief Society is done away with. Also, it would be interesting seeing mothers giving the priesthood to their daughters. But...the upheaval would be so deep and strong that I think that many members would fall away and join the catholic church or become agnostic.

For such a change to happen, there would need to be some discussion beforehand to soothe out the transition process.

I am uncertain that people's claim that relief society would need to be done away with is really valid. We have quorum limits based on size, there would be no reason not to also have quorums based on gender.

Why not just keep the relief society? Is there something out there that I have missed that would preclude that as a viable option?

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think being a faithful member results in proper choices in all things. How is it in the latter days that even the very elect of God may be deceived and fall? I believe the CofC example is pertinent to the discussion. This is a church that began to react to the whims of individuals and began ordaining women, which is only one of the many steps they made away from God. What is so interesting is that their membership dropped precipitously, which conflicts with their objective of becoming more acceptable to individuals. Too many of us want an easy life. We want to always sit down at the table to a full meal of all that is pleasing to the senses. Too few us understand or appreciate that the purpose of fasting is multifaceted. We seek to overcome the desires of the flesh for the purpose of gaining a closer relationship with God. What does it mean to deny the flesh? What does it mean to seek the will of God? I have lived for many decades and I have yet to meet an individual that was not humbled by accepting to adhere to the will of our Father in Heaven rather than to follow the desires of their own heart. We have faithful members who seek and make poor choices all the time. Thankfully, the cycle is that we seek after our own desires, fall, repent, and then return to a more full relationship with God.

The only way the church of christ example is relavent is if you believe they are lead by revelation.

This thread is entertaining the idea of an expansion of the priesthood to women based on revelation. Many of the people (though not all, and likely not even the majority) are asking the church to consider this issue of women and the priesthood through earnest prayer. Asking our leaders to actively seek for revelation on a matter that is important to us is a basic necessity of a church lead by revelation.

If people are demanding change in the absence of revelation then I would respectfully ask them to rephrase the question.

Revelation from God and the Whims of the people are not mutually exclusive... sometimes people can "Whim" for what God reveals...

Edited March 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

But it must look like the revealed word of God. And if this announcement came at GC in April, it would not seem like that at all. But the shock of it would send many into a tailspin from which they may never recover and I am speaking of the women in the church. Like I said, the upheaval when all are in elders quorum, both men and women and the disbanding of the relief society as it now stands, would be a shock and awe experience for many women. And we are also speaking about girls too. Also, most men do not refuse the priesthood and this would also have to be the same with the girls and women. This is not be something that 40 or 60 percent could opt out of. It would not work if this were the case.

How would a change issued from the pulpit of general conference not look like a revelation? GC is meant to be scripture? What am I missing here? If GC talks happen to meet needs expressed by a certain component of church membership then it ought not be considered revelation?

That just sounds like the Blacks and the Priesthood era where many were opposed to the idea of change because of the many voices actively calling for the change. In that instance the church did eventually make a change when the social movement had quieted down somewhat... but had the revelation come sooner it would have been no less revelation.

Most of the world doesn't think what we say is revelation anyway... Isn't your concern a total capitulation to the views of the world... we should make sure revelation looks as much like revelation as possible by doing it in a way that the world would most likely accept?

Not saying you are wrong, but at the root this argument is suggests a gross devaluing of what revelation claims to be.

[CASteinman]

That is clearly the intention of the poll... the opening post makes clear that a statement in conference would only be a possibility if revelation had preceded it.

It is one thing to read to much into what is written... however, it seems to you consciously not reading the poll in the context of the opening post.

I answered the poll. I did not make some special effort to ignore the first post. But the poll is the poll. The first post is the first post. They are not the same things. By training I do not attempt to read minds when answering questions like that.

If the poll is incorrectly worded, I am not to blame for that and its not my fault -- you should not be seeking to chastise me for some imaginary crime.

[CASteinman]

I am uncertain that people's claim that relief society would need to be done away with is really valid. We have quorum limits based on size, there would be no reason not to also have quorums based on gender.

Why not just keep the relief society? Is there something out there that I have missed that would preclude that as a viable option?

It becomes redundant.

[CASteinman]

The women folk don't need to hold the Priesthood in order to be exalted. However they must accept virtually the same obligations as us men folk do in the Temple Endowment.

I don't see how that relates.

[Bikeemikey]

I answered the poll. I did not make some special effort to ignore the first post. But the poll is the poll. The first post is the first post. They are not the same things. By training I do not attempt to read minds when answering questions like that.

If the poll is incorrectly worded, I am not to blame for that and its not my fault -- you should not be seeking to chastise me for some imaginary crime.

It is clear that reference to the announcement occurring in conference is a reference to revelation as the cause for change - unless I am also secretly proposing a sudden LDS apocalypse where the leaders of the church fail fulfill their prophetic callings and decide that this year they will just do whatever they want without the need for revelation.

It is good to know that for some respondents may have made answers assuming that revelation was not the reason for the hypothetical conference announcement.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

I would disapprove but I would be interesting to watch people navigate the change and look on women's faces when they need to sit in Elder's Quorum and Relief Society is done away with. Also, it would be interesting seeing mothers giving the priesthood to their daughters. But...the upheaval would be so deep and strong that I think that many members would fall away and join the catholic church or become agnostic.

For such a change to happen, there would need to be some discussion beforehand to soothe out the transition process.

I think that this would be, in some ways, more damaging to the way things function in the Church than having gays marry in the Temple. But I would not fall away over women being ordained. I would just feel inclined to mourn a bit and wonder why God wants these problems to occur.

But although having gays marry in the Temple would be less disruptive to the organization of the Church and the way things function, it so completely upturns extremely fundamental doctrines, that I would have a hard time figuring out what I would do.

And I find that interesting -- that the more disruptive policy (in my opinion) I would support far easier and sooner than the less disruptive policy.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see how that relates.

With few exceptions withhout the Temple Endowment it is impossible to be exalted.

[Bikeemikey]

It becomes redundant.

There is nothing redundant about a space for those of different genders to have a space that is exclusively theirs.

Please elaborate where you see the redundancy.

[CASteinman]

It is clear that reference to the announcement occurring in conference is a reference to revelation as the cause for change

You claim it was clear. I say it was not... the Poll Question was entirely silent on the matter. Its ok for you to get over this quickly rather than beat a dead horse.

[Bikeemikey]

I think that this would be, in some ways, more damaging to the way things function in the Church than having gays marry in the Temple. But I would not fall away over women being ordained. I would just feel inclined to mourn a bit and wonder why God wants these problems to occur.

But although having gays marry in the Temple would be less disruptive to the organization of the Church and the way things function, it so completely upturns extremely fundamental doctrines, that I would have a hard time figuring out what I would do.

And I find that interesting -- that the more disruptive policy (in my opinion) I would support far easier and sooner than the less disruptive policy.

Where do you see the problems coming from? Why is their damage from the change?

I see change from the change... I am not sure I see damage... Would you please be able to provide some examples of where these damages you think may occur.