Bishop Publicly Campaigning For Women To Hold Priesthood - Against Church Policy?

[Mark Beesley]

Hope I'm not quoting this out of context:

Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.

Jacob 4:10

And now, back to life . . . :-D

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. I reviewed the man's profile. I found a few problems with it. I do not think restrictions on the priesthood are "bitter." Such a denigration appears to contravene these fellow's denial of creating an "affront to the Church."

2. Additionally, the restrictions on the priesthood have been characterized by the Brethren - whom he claims to sustain - as from God. So characterizing a revealed doctrine as "bitter" also appears problematic.

3. I am fine with this fellow's hope to see women get the priesthood. But I strongly disagree that publicly denouncing the Church's doctrine, coupled with press releases and other efforts to make the Church look bad, are an appropriate way for church members to voice their desires for continuing revelation.

4. I strongly disagree with this fellow using his status as bishop to bolster his viewpoint and his voice, which is presently being raised publicly against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

This is what concerns me as well. I have no problem with people having their own private positions of what they'd like to see, but I am wary when people capitalize on their ecclesiastical authority--and I think Bishops who are currently serving need to be careful not to do this. If they want to come out publicly in favor of something controversial or not in line with church policy, if would be better to wait until after they are released, IMO.

I'm aware of people who, while serving as bishops or in stake presidencies, declined to place signs in their yard supporting candidates during election campaigns because of the potential for divisiveness.

[Scott Lloyd]

BD,

If I had an issue sustaining this man, it would not be due to his opinion that women should be entitled to the Priesthood. It would be due to his openly voicing disagreement with current Church policy and openly voicing a difference of opinion with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve while he was serving in the capacity of a Bishop.

According to his statement on the web page, he loves and sustains the First Presidency but is praying that the members of the Church will prepare themselves so that the prophet can receive the revelation bringing about what he wants. I say again, it is an arrogant and presumptuous position to take.

[smac97]

According to his statement on the web page, he loves and sustains the First Presidency but is praying that the members of the Church will prepare themselves so that the prophet can receive the revelation bringing about what he wants. I say again, it is an arrogant and presumptuous position to take.

I am not sure such a position is "arrogant and presumptuous," but it is profoundly misguided to think that mounting a PR campaign against the Church, specifically designed to make the Church look bad, is an appropriate mechanism for church members to "prepare themselves" for revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not sure such a position is "arrogant and presumptuous," but it is profoundly misguided to think that mounting a PR campaign against the Church, specifically designed to make the Church look bad, is an appropriate mechanism for church members to "prepare themselves" for revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the intent might be to prepare the rest of us. That's why I think it arrogant.

[alter idem]

It looks like the person behind this is Kate Kelly:

http://www.sltrib.co...ch-lds.html.csp

Thanks for finding that--

From the article:

Besides that, she views female ordination as helping the church hold on to its young women.

I wonder on what basis she believes this? Are there some statistics I don't know about that show that male priesthood holders are more likely to remain active than women and non priesthood holder males? The survey she cites doesn't really address this, 'gender issues' could be many things and I seriously doubt tons of women are clamouring for heavier callings, more meetings and additional responsibility at church!

Edited April 3, 2013 by alter idem

[Peppermint Patty]

I wonder on what basis she believes this? Are there some statistics I don't know about that show that male priesthood holders are more likely to remain active than women and non priesthood holder males? The survey she cites doesn't really address this, 'gender issues' could be many things and I seriously doubt tons of women are clamouring for heavier callings, more meetings and additional responsibility at church!

Yes, I would like to know as well. The article brings up several questions.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Peppermint Patty

[alter idem]

I'm aware of people who, while serving as bishops or in stake presidencies, declined to place signs in their yard supporting candidates during election campaigns because of the potential for divisiveness.

Actually, My husband and I are one of those families. We did not put any political signs out(we were asked a number of times) while he served as Bishop--precisely because of his position in the Ward, so I can vouch for this. That is one reason I disagree with this man putting a profile on this website. As a Bishop, I think he needs to be considerate of his ward members sensitivities--but that's just me, he apparently sees it differently--but he'll also have to deal with the fall out if people in his ward get word of his position and they feel uncomfortable with it.

[rockpond]

But we do have the promise from God Himself that the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Where is that promise?

[JAHS]

From the Trib article:

"The group quotes Mormon founder Joseph Smith, saying he hoped to make the all-woman Relief Society "a Kingdom of Priests," and sees female ordination as realizing that vision."

This in my opinion is a classic case of taking something out of context. The Joseph Smith qoute this is taken from states:

"the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Joseph Smith was refering to the Church when he said "Society". Later the word "Society" was changed to "Church" to clarify the meaning of the statement so there would be no confusion as to what organization he was talking about. Joseph Smith had, on other occasions, used the word "Society" when talking about the Church in general(D&C 134:9-10, History of the Church Vol. IV) If he was talking about the Relief Society specifically he would have said he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priestesses"(instead of priests).

[Alan]

I have just read this Bishop's statement and can find nothing wrong with it at all.

He is not speaking for anyone but himself. I am inclined to agree with him that the restoration is an unfolding process and that the Lord is less likely to reveal new insights or doctrine until the members are ready for it. A case in point is the 1978 priesthood revelation. The membership were ready and had been made ready over a number of years. Eventually I believe, it was inevitable. Not only was there no real opposition to the move, there was jubilation! The same will be true of female ordination.

The day will come, but I do not think it will be very soon. Opinions such as that expressed by this Bishop just help to move things along a little.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Alan

[JAHS]

I have just read this Bishop's statement and can find nothing wrong with it at all.

He is not speaking for anyone but himself. I am inclined to agree with him that the restoration is an unfolding process and that the Lord is less likely to reveal new insights or doctrine until the members are ready for it. A case in point is the 1978 priesthood revelation. The membership were ready and had been made ready over a number of years. Eventually I believe, it was inevitable. Not only was there no real opposition to the move, there was jubilation! The same will be true of female ordination.

The day will come, but I do not think it will be very soon. Opinions such as that expressed by this Bishop just help to move things along a little.

I rejoiced when the 1978 priesthood announcement was made. From the very beginning of the restoration prophets were promising that the day would come when the blacks would receive the priesthood. No such promise has ever been made regarding women holding the priesthood. i don't think that day will ever come. It would contradict too many basic doctrinal principles and scripture regarding the roles of males and females in the church.

Edited April 3, 2013 by JAHS

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If he loses his position or gets disciplined the church is not true. He will not not get disciplined or lose his position

Not so sure, when you are a Bishop you are not supposed to "publicly campaign" concerning Church doctrine. In the early Church, Apostles were excommunicated for doing the same. As a representative of the Church you are supposed to support Church Doctrine, or asked to be removed from your calling. Even teachers in the Church do not get to teach on hobby topics or politics, be what is considered doctrine. It has always been then way even in the ancient Church following Christ. You can have you own opinions and do what you feel you must, but as a leader, that means you accept the Doctrine and Leadership. Also (and this cannot be stated enough) the Apostles, nor the Prophet are not to make Ny changes to doctrine unless it be by revelation. This is either a Church established by God and governed by God, or a man-made one. If man-made and the 15 Apostles can do whatever they like, then no it is not true. And...if man-made, then we should seek out one that is not.

[smac97]

Where is that promise?

It's in the "Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto" published with, but I think not technically part of,

the Official Declaration - 1.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 3, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

I have just read this Bishop's statement and can find nothing wrong with it at all.

He is not speaking for anyone but himself.

When he publicly identifies himself as a bishop as a precursor to voicing his views (which views contravene the current doctrines of the Church), he is decidedly not "speaking for anyone but himself."

I am inclined to agree with him that the restoration is an unfolding process and that the Lord is less likely to reveal new insights or doctrine until the members are ready for it.

I agree with this principle, but I utterly reject the notion that participating in a PR campaign against the Church, and publicly speaking out against the doctrines of the Church, are an appropriate means for church members to ready themselves for further revelation. God is not the author of confusion, or of contention. But these people are publicly contending against the Church.

A case in point is the 1978 priesthood revelation. The membership were ready and had been made ready over a number of years. Eventually I believe, it was inevitable. Not only was there no real opposition to the move, there was jubilation! The same will be true of female ordination.

I do not think there were church members publicly agitating against the Church, nor do I believe the revelation came because of such agitation.

The day will come, but I do not think it will be very soon. Opinions such as that expressed by this Bishop just help to move things along a little.

First, the fact that you specifically refer to this person by his ecclesiastical calling ("this Bishop"), rather than as an individual, belies your earlier suggestion that he is "not speaking for anyone but himself."

Second, what happens if that day does not come? Is this man setting people like you up for a fall? For a crisis of faith? For apostasy? For further public opposition to the Church as a pressure tactic to attempt compulsory change in the Church's doctrine?

Third, I am quite open to a revelation giving the priesthood to anyone the Lord deems fit. But I utterly reject the adversarial tactics being used by some members of the Church to reach this objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 3, 2013 by smac97

[rockpond]

It's in the "Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto" published with, but I think not technically part of,

the Official Declaration - 1.

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay... just checking. I was aware of the statement given by President Woodruff. It was the claim that it came from "God Himself" that threw me.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have just read this Bishop's statement and can find nothing wrong with it at all.

He is not speaking for anyone but himself. I am inclined to agree with him that the restoration is an unfolding process and that the Lord is less likely to reveal new insights or doctrine until the members are ready for it. A case in point is the 1978 priesthood revelation. The membership were ready and had been made ready over a number of years. Eventually I believe, it was inevitable. Not only was there no real opposition to the move, there was jubilation! The same will be true of female ordination.

The day will come, but I do not think it will be very soon. Opinions such as that expressed by this Bishop just help to move things along a little.

It was foregone that the priesthood would one day be given to all worthy males. Official Declaration 2 itself makes reference to "promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church" who preceded President Kimball.

There have been no such promises made nor any such foregone conclusion with regard to the ordaining of women.

That is a difference that must not be minimized.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with this principle, but I utterly reject the notion that participating in a PR campaign against the Church, and publicly speaking out against the doctrines of the Church, are an appropriate means for church members to ready themselves for further revelation. God is not the author of confusion, or of contention. But these people are publicly contending against the Church.

And, in the process, subjecting the Church to embarrassment among the outside public. In a discussion today, I heard that compared to what the publishers and authors of the Nauvoo Expositor were doing.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[tyler90az]

The first sentence is absolutely false. You can't be certain of the second.

The Bishop is doing nothing but expressing his personal views. It would be a different story if he preached his view from the pulpit or anywhere in church.

If he gets punished the church would be infringing on a fundamental value of the constitution Freedom of Speech. As you know, the church believes the Constitution is divine. So what is it, is the consitution divine or not? The church would basically being saying to all members do not say anything besides what we tell you.

Which is what they did with the September 6. I can accept it happening once as the church is always evolving similar to us as individuals. For them to do it again though shows that they truly do not value freedom of speech or free agency. The devil is the one who proposed that we have no free agency not Jesus Christ.

[tyler90az]

By the way, that would mean everybody who supports women getting ordained should be released from their callings. Are not all calling of the same value in the eyes of God?

[Scott Lloyd]

The Bishop is doing nothing but expressing his personal views. It would be a different story if he preached his view from the pulpit or anywhere in church.

He is clearly using his status as bishop to give weight to his endorsement of the campaign. Not cool, in my book.

If he gets punished the church would be infringing on a fundamental value of the constitution Freedom of Speech. As you know, the church believes the Constitution is divine. So what is it, is the consitution divine or not? The church would basically being saying to all members do not say anything besides what we tell you.

The U.S. Constitution pertains to civil government. It does not govern private organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ, and it does not compel the Church to allow its members to do and say anything they want and still be granted the privilege of membership or standing in the Church.

Which is what they did with the September 6. I can accept it happening once as the church is always evolving similar to us as individuals. For them to do it again though shows that they truly do not value freedom of speech or free agency. The devil is the one who proposed that we have no free agency not Jesus Christ.

"Free agency" is a misnomer. The correct scriptural terminology is moral agency or simply agency. And the principle does not grant to people freedom from consequences associated with their choices or behavior.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, that would mean everybody who supports women getting ordained should be released from their callings. Are not all calling of the same value in the eyes of God?

I'm not calling for him to get released from his calling. I already said I'm leaving it up to the Lord.

It was you who said that if it happens, it means the Church is not true. That is rank nonsense. And you said it won't happen. I don't think you are in a position to make such an absolute prediction.

[MormonMason]

B.S., Tyler. If he is "punished" it affects the Constitution not one iota. The Church cannot and will not stop him from expressing his opinion in public but the Church has every right to make consequences available for violating Church policy, if such he does. You have every right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater but you cannot control the consequences of said action.

Free speech is infringed all the time when it poses a danger to others. That is the law for things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and for making threats to nuke the White House, and so forth. When you are a member of an organization, the organization has a right to impose sanctions for violations of its policies. You can make all the free-speech comments you want, even if it costs you your membership in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just wondering: Can anybody here confirm that this guy actually is a bishop? The profile gives a first name only, which may or may not be his real name, and gives no ward or place of residence.

There is, of course, a photo. The only real way to confirm, I suppose, would be if someone recognized him from the photo.