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

[CASteinman]

I agree with BlueDreams, there is a sameness to his introduction and quite a few others that appear to be using the site's instructions as inspiration as what to say. If so, there is a significant probability there was no intent on his part to use his calling to give himself more credibility especially since it was somewhat of a throwaway comment, no attempt to draw special attention to it....though the site may have that intent...not the level of callings, but to demonstrate these are active, faithful, members who are respected and trusted by other members (thus the callings). I would say his description of himself as a lifelong, active member is for that purpose as well.

I agree. I don't think he is using his position.

But the problem is, because of his position, he should not be there.

[Scott Lloyd]

But the church has more control and can demand certain behavior from employees which they ought not demand from lay clergy who are not in their employ.

Bishop is a demanding calling in many ways. Only the spiritually mature should receive it, and they should be knowledgeable and wise enough to know what they are getting into. Part of the demands, it seems to me, is to be aligned with the general leadership of the Church on matters of policy as well as doctrine. One should decline the calling if he feels unable or unwilling to live up to the expectations. There is no shame in that.

And yes, because of the sublime nature of the calling and its profound impact on so many people, loyalty on the part of a bishop is at least as important as loyalty on the part of a Church or BYU employee.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not comfortable with an effort to try to find out this man's real life identity and I don't think it is necessary.

The reason I was wanting more information is that I was beginning to doubt whether the author of the post was indeed a bishop. I'm still not altogether certain. Some in the past have lied about such a thing in order to enhance their credibility.

[MormonMason]

The site owner also is doing pretty well in covering up identifiable information by converting images to a lower resolution and removing EXIF information from the photos as well. I wonder why he does not provide his last name if he supports this position so much as he says. If he had safety reasons, as I do, he would have a reason but if he has no reason not to give his last name, he should have done so--unless he does not want his information verifiable. If we had a last name, all that would be needed is to check his name against the current book of currently serving bishops and others that currently serving bishops have in their possessions.

Edited April 4, 2013 by MormonMason

[BlueDreams]

The reason I was wanting more information is that I was beginning to doubt whether the author of the post was indeed a bishop. I'm still not altogether certain. Some in the past have lied about such a thing in order to enhance their credibility.

There isn't much reason or motivation for him to do so considering it is one small profile with little else behind it on a website that will take not only active members for their thoughts, but those less active who would want to return or feel disaffected because of this, and those that are deeply concerned and care about the church and its members/gender equality in it. So basically, he could fit just about any descriptor as long as he generally likes the church or the people in it and call it good. There's almost no visible reason for him to lie for credibility.

Back to studying....ugh!

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

I have served as a bishop and I believe fundamental LDS theology will not

accomodate the ordination of women to the priesthood. So, this bishop's

opinion counters that bishop's opinion, and once again there is balance

in the universe.

[Alan]

In my view, women receiving the priesthood is almost inevitable. Even President Hinckley said it was possible.

But it will require the prophet taking the question to the Lord in the same way he took the African question. The Lord does not reveal in a vaccum.

Any woman who has been through the temple already has a portion of the priesthood anyway. Also, female temple workers officiate in priesthood temple ordinances every day, so they hold a portion of the priesthood - they must do or the ordinance would be ineffective.

Anyone who goes to the temple will recognise the word "priestess".

[Scott Lloyd]

There isn't much reason or motivation for him to do so considering it is one small profile with little else behind it on a website that will take not only active members for their thoughts, but those less active who would want to return or feel disaffected because of this, and those that are deeply concerned and care about the church and its members/gender equality in it. So basically, he could fit just about any descriptor as long as he generally likes the church or the people in it and call it good. There's almost no visible reason for him to lie for credibility.

Back to studying....ugh!

With luv,

BD

On the contrary, if one's object is to sway public opinion (and thereby bring pressure to bear on the leadership of the Church), there could be substantial motive for enlisting (or feigning) the endorsement of a bishop, with all of the aura of real or perceived wisdom and piety that such an office brings to bear. If you're trying to persuade various segments of the populace, one way, perhaps, to reel in the active, earnest, committed Mormons is to convince them that bishops favor the change and are even praying for it to happen. There is much for this group to gain by enlisting as many bishops in their cause as they can and, failing that, make it appear that one or more bishops are on board.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

If a Bishop or a Stake President of even an apostle comes out in opposition against the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve then they are guilty of apostasy and if they do not repent they should be cut off from the Church. I always follow the First Presidency (the Prophet) and the twelve... because we do not believe in the infallibility of any man. But we do have the promise from God Himself that the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Actually this promise came from a man. I do not know that this man ever said it came from the mouth of God.

[Teancum]

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.

I agree with Scott on this. If you are going to serve is a calling like a bishop you need to support the Church's positions or at least not openly disagree.

[Teancum]

"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.

The term Free Agency was readily used in the Church for most of its history by LDS prophets and apostles. Then along come Elder Packer and he gives one talk about how the term is not proper and we really have moral agency and now Free Agency is false doctrine. Hmmm...

Edited April 4, 2013 by Teancum

[smac97]

Actually this promise came from a man. I do not know that this man ever said it came from the mouth of God.

Daniel 2 comes to mind.

[DBMormon]

If a Bishop or a Stake President of even an apostle comes out in opposition against the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve then they are guilty of apostasy and if they do not repent they should be cut off from the Church. I always follow the First Presidency (the Prophet) and the twelve... because we do not believe in the infallibility of any man. But we do have the promise from God Himself that the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Where is he in opposition? He seems to simply say he would accept it with loving arms if it happened and meanwhile he sustains the Church Leaders.

I hope someday nonmembers will be able to view Temple Sealings or we will seperate the sealing and marriage as two separate things that one can do both with out a wait inbetween but meanwhile I realize it would take revelation to change that and I Sustain the Brethren and will pray for it and wait and hope in anticipation.

What's the difference?

He has made no demands and only shares a hope. He recognizes the change comes by revelation and he sustains the brethren.

[DBMormon]

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.

Except many saints did the same prior to 78 and the Church even praises the effort in it's PBS documentary

[Scott Lloyd]

Except many saints did the same prior to 78 ....

I think I was actually among them.

But as I said in a prior post, there is a fundamental difference in that it was foregone that the priesthood would eventually be given to all worthy males. Promises to that effect were even cited in Official Declaration 2.

There is no such foregone conclusion and no such promises that what this man wants will come about, not, at least, among those in authority to make such promises.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

I think I was actually among them.

But as I said in a prior post, there is a fundamental difference in that it was foregone that the priesthood would eventually be given to all worthy males. Promises to that effect were even cited in Official Declaration 2.

There is no such foregone conclusion and no such promises that what this man wants will come about, not, at least, among those in authority to make such promises.

And that is reason enough to condemn his stance? I don't see him applying pressure by force or doing anything I would call apostasy.

I see nothing in his statement that warrants him being barraged by what the people have said here on this thread.

[DBMormon]

I agree with Scott on this. If you are going to serve is a calling like a bishop you need to support the Church's positions or at least not openly disagree.

He is not disagreeing.... He supports the Church's policy/doctrine and recognizes that it would take a revelation for it to change and simply adds his voice that he would be thrilled. I see nothing controversial about his stance. I wish all dissenters took his approach. If what he is doing is wrong then there is a tow the line mentality that I see as egregious.

Way too many LDS can not handle anyone who thinks and feels differently then them. We seek to force all into the same mold and when someone dissents in a sustaining, supportive, follow the brethren way.... We shoot him down and call him an apostate. Sorry but nowhere does the Church "Doctrine" ask me to two the line in this way.

He makes no demands and he doesn't claim to know better then the Brethren.

I don't have a horse in the race, but I completely sustain his right to dissent respectfully and in a way that acknowledges the Church is led by revelation and seeks to support the Brethren

The thing I hate the most about Church Culture is the "Tow the Line" mentality.

DbMormon

[DBMormon]

This is baloney. There is actually a reason he could be disciplined.

And that reason Would be?

[DBMormon]

Brigham Youngsaid: I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150 quoted by James E. Faust, "Continuous Revelation," Ensign, Nov 1989, 8

Hugh B Brown - We are grateful in the Church and in this great university that the freedom, dignity and integrity of the individual is basic in Church doctrine as well as in democracy. Here we are free to think and express our opinions. Fear will not stifle thought, as is the case in some areas which have not yet emerged from the Dark Ages. God himself refuses to trammel man's free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.

"I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent—if you are informed.

"Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the market place of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, 'From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us'.

Joseph F. Smith said on September 3, 1892 - Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

Elder Sylvester Q. Cannon stated - Now, we do not believe in blind obedience, but we do believe in discerning obedience. Every one of us is entitled to enjoy discernment. What is discernment? It is recognizing the difference between right and wrong, or developing clearness of judgment or insight. If we are living the Gospel we are entitled to enjoy the light of the Holy Spirit to guide and bless us, to enable us to judge rightly. We do not have to accept the judgment or counsel of the man who stands at the head of the Church here upon the earth; but we will know that the things he advises are right, if we will divorce ourselves from personal or political desire or ideas. We should strive to enjoy the spirit of discernment. The Apostle Paul tells us that one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost is the discernment of spirits. In like manner one of the gifts is discernment of right and wrong. What a wonderful thing it will be when we shall all learn correct principles, and have the discernment to govern ourselves in righteousness. Then we shall grow in justice and fair dealing, we shall avoid strife and contention, we shall enact and administer equitable laws, and improve in temporal and spiritual things. The Lord will prosper this people temporally as well as spiritually if we control our selfish feelings and strive to carry out his purposes

I sustain these men and their quotes. I wish we were all more tolerant of those different then us. And as long as those differences fit within the doctrine/policy of the church I don't see why it is not safe to disagree within that context and still be a active worthy member of the church

Edited April 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

The more I read this thread, the more I feel like I must be reading a different profile....because the amount of ulterior motives associated or expected from him just isn't what I read or see warranted by his response.

But quickly:

from some online dictionary - Campaign: a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result./....a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose

His action is no more campaigning than my profile on mormon.org is me campaigning. Lending voice, adding to the dialogue, or aggreeing is not the same as campaigning. I have no evidence that he's doing so. He's not campaigning in my book until i see evidence otherwise.

The only reason I'm willing to not sustain someone is that I have certifiable proof that the person is doing something morally reprehensible or he has been known to grossly abuse the power given to him in other circumstances. The end. Plenty of things can cause a rift in the ward...it doesn't mean that doing so means that its good enough to not sustain the person. Maybe I just don't have enough concern for this. I have no idea what my bishop's views are on the vast majority of social issues. I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with him on a number of things. As long as it has no effect on what he has stewardship over and in that has to do with me I could care less. Whether he would desire women to be ordained or not has no effect on this. If it begins to, then there is a case for something is not right. But from what I see, if he were my bishop, I'd probably have no idea that he believes this.

With luv,

BD

I have disagreed numerous times with you, This time I say Amen

[CASteinman]

And that reason Would be?

1. For, while operating as a Bishop, taking his complaint outside of channels and presenting it to the World.

2. For, while operating as a Bishop, recklessly sowing seeds of discord among the flock.

[CASteinman]

The thing I hate the most about Church Culture is the "Tow the Line" mentality.

Its not exactly just Culture. It is Church Doctrine to be humbly obedient to the counsel of the Lord's Annointed.

Apparently though, you do not hate this all THAT much.

[CASteinman]

I see nothing in his statement that warrants him being barraged by what the people have said here on this thread.

I have not seen him being barraged. What are you referring to?

[CASteinman]

The site owner also is doing pretty well in covering up identifiable information by converting images to a lower resolution and removing EXIF information from the photos as well. I wonder why he does not provide his last name if he supports this position so much as he says. If he had safety reasons, as I do, he would have a reason but if he has no reason not to give his last name, he should have done so--unless he does not want his information verifiable. If we had a last name, all that would be needed is to check his name against the current book of currently serving bishops and others that currently serving bishops have in their possessions.

I am sure he is not unknown to his community. The standard format is one he followed.

I don't have a problem with him posting there -- if he were not a Bishop. As Bishop, he has a responsibility that he has shirked -- or worse.

[Scott Lloyd]

And that is reason enough to condemn his stance? I don't see him applying pressure by force or doing anything I would call apostasy.

I guess I missed the post where someone accused him of apostasy. The general disapproval seems to be of his misusing his office in identifying himself as a bishop while he lends support to a social-media pressure campaign being brought to bear upon the leadership of the Church. That has adversarial overtones that are unseemly for a bishop to be involved in.

I see nothing in his statement that warrants him being barraged by what the people have said here on this thread.

How can he be barraged? He has retained his anonymity and, for all we know is not even aware of the existence of this forum. At the same time he has taken a public position which is fair game for commentary in a public message board such as this one. We are as entitled to express opinions as he is to participate in the pressure campaign.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd