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

[ERMD]

God Himself? I thought it was Wilford Woodruff who proclaimed that "the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Perhaps you should change your statement.

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. Edited April 5, 2013 by ERMD

[Kenngo1969]

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion for the moment, that these folks are correct and that the time has come to confer the Priesthood upon women. Although I don't believe the two situations are analogous because there was always a contingent of the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sants which anticipated a day in which African Blacks would receive the Priesthood, the actual change did not come about until well after the social pressure exerted by those who hoped for such a change had subsided. If such a change were simply a result of, e.g., forces brought to bear by the Civil Rights Movement, the Church of Jesus Christ would have made the change at least ten years earlier, if not even sooner.

Conversely, there is no similar contingent among Church leaders which anticipates the ordaining of women to the Priesthood, and if it were to come about as a result of the social pressure exerted by those who agitate for such a change, it would set a bad precedent. Many would conclude that the Church of Jesus Christ simply is vulnerable to social pressure, and agitation would increase in various quarters for whatever change is the cause du jour among the various subsets of Church membership who are dissatisfied, in one way or another, with some aspect of how the Church is run. I don't think opening the floodgates to advocating for such change is wise. If-and-when women are ordained to the Priesthood (and/or if any other change favored by some disaffected segment or other happens) it will happen long after the pressure for it has subsided.

It is little wonder, then, that the Lord attempts to reassure those who would steady the ark, "I am able to do mine own work."

Edited April 6, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

Point of information:

I just re-checked the link in the OP. The sentence in which he identifies himself as a bishop has been removed.

[CASteinman]

Point of information:

I just re-checked the link in the OP. The sentence in which he identifies himself as a bishop has been removed.

For some people, that fixes the problem. For me it does not. My problem was never that he claimed to be a Bishop (something that other people found offensive) but for me the problem is that he is a Bishop (I believed him).

Removing that fixes what, for me, was a superficial issue.

Edited April 6, 2013 by CASteinman

[ERMD]

Point of information:

I just re-checked the link in the OP. The sentence in which he identifies himself as a bishop has been removed.

Must have been done in the last few hours. I started reading this thread this afternoon, and it so stated then. We have a mole!

Edited April 6, 2013 by ERMD

[BlueDreams]

Must have been done in the last few hours. I started reading this thread this afternoon, and it so stated then. We have a mole!

It could mean a lot of things. No need for a mole. It could mean that he was asked by his leaders to remove that sentence or that he felt more comfortable without that claim in his profile. It could mean just about anything.

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.

I wasn’t talking about the group. I was talking about the guy in question himself. He, individually, has little to gain from this profile. He (as far as we’re aware) has about as much to do with the website as I do with mormon.org….a profile doesn’t not equate active enlistment, advancement, and movement on the part of the individual. Any claim or speculation about his individual participation beyond adding a profile is just that: speculative….and based heavily on people disapproval of his profile. My personal guess, based on solely the little info we have on him is that he isn’t super active in this movement. His tone is too passive to be considered an overall activist for this cause.

Of course the group has an interest in having active members in good standing place a profile. They want the movement to be seen as less of an extreme minority with barely a say in the community and as individuals invested in the way the church is run as people who love their faith. I can’t blame them for wanting that. People have a tendency to give unnecessarily harsh criticism to them as a faceless entity. They’re making it less faceless and say, look! We’re your neighbor, co-member in the faith, etc. Can’t really blame them for that. Any group that is unfairly stereotyped as the fringe

With luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

It could mean a lot of things. No need for a mole. It could mean that he was asked by his leaders to remove that sentence or that he felt more comfortable without that claim in his profile. It could mean just about anything.

True. Another possibility is that he has been released in the time since he put up the profile.

I wasn’t talking about the group. I was talking about the guy in question himself. He, individually, has little to gain from this profile. He (as far as we’re aware) has about as much to do with the website as I do with mormon.org….a profile doesn’t not equate active enlistment, advancement, and movement on the part of the individual. Any claim or speculation about his individual participation beyond adding a profile is just that: speculative….and based heavily on people disapproval of his profile. My personal guess, based on solely the little info we have on him is that he isn’t super active in this movement. His tone is too passive to be considered an overall activist for this cause.

Of course the group has an interest in having active members in good standing place a profile. They want the movement to be seen as less of an extreme minority with barely a say in the community and as individuals invested in the way the church is run as people who love their faith. I can’t blame them for wanting that. People have a tendency to give unnecessarily harsh criticism to them as a faceless entity. They’re making it less faceless and say, look! We’re your neighbor, co-member in the faith, etc. Can’t really blame them for that. Any group that is unfairly stereotyped as the fringe

He doesn't seem all that passive about it to me. He seems rather passionate actually, in which case, he would have strong motivation to lend whatever influence he has to the cause.

[reubendunn1]

first off, I don't think what he did would be considered "campaigning." He's voicing an opinion that's against the grain, but not in a means to say that he believes should be pushed through or voted into action. Campaigning is too strong of a word for what he did. I don't know about within church responsibility. I guess if he was using his calling to promote his view as absolutely right.....then yes. At the moment and the way he mentions his calling (a quick sentence with no connection to any of his points about why women should hold the priesthood), no. He's doing it simply to voice his own desires and so that others may also voice their own....

Much less attention would his comments draw were he to have omitted the line about his calling? Referencing to his calling, even in passing, creates an air of authority that simply isn't there, any more than my comments added by the phrase "High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would add to my credibility. To the outsider however, both titles, the Bishop and High Priest, sound MIGHTY impressive and lend something to the process.

Given the statement that church released this week about the subject, this really a moot point.

[Scott Lloyd]

Much less attention would his comments draw were he to have omitted the line about his calling? Referencing to his calling, even in passing, creates an air of authority that simply isn't there, any more than my comments added by the phrase "High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would add to my credibility. To the outsider however, both titles, the Bishop and High Priest, sound MIGHTY impressive and lend something to the process.

Given the statement that church released this week about the subject, this really a moot point.

What statement was that? Did I miss something?

[DBMormon]

Much less attention would his comments draw were he to have omitted the line about his calling? Referencing to his calling, even in passing, creates an air of authority that simply isn't there, any more than my comments added by the phrase "High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would add to my credibility. To the outsider however, both titles, the Bishop and High Priest, sound MIGHTY impressive and lend something to the process.

Given the statement that church released this week about the subject, this really a moot point.

Unless as a Bishop he has gained insight into how this policy/doctrine affects others.

[DBMormon]

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.

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.

Not saying Scott that you personally accused him, but within this thread we have people raising their hands in not sustaining him if he was in one's Ward, there has been at least one call for Church Discipline, and too many comments about his stance being opposed to the brethren which at it's heart is not.

While recognizing that major change comes through revelation and recognizing that Revelation come through the brethren, he simply hopes for some specific change in the church but he indicates he is willing to wait on the Lord and his prophets.... he demanded nothing. If we throw out guys like this then while our rhetoric is that as Elder Uchtdorf said, people do not have to fit a mold in their thinking, our actual stance is be quiet and get in line.

When I hear Elder Uchtdorf and others in the FP and most of the Apostles speak, it is an effort to give members flexibility as long as they stay within the doctrine of the church and yet on this board every day I hear "tow the line" "be more like me".... "ohhhh he's different.... and that means he is dangerous."

Edited April 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[reubendunn1]

Unless as a Bishop he has gained insight into how this policy/doctrine affects others.

in that case, rather than give e impression that he is speaking as an official spokesman for the LDS Church, such "insight" and personal revelation, is best kept to himself, until such time as The Lord provides that same "insight" to His Prophet. We're given this counsel concerning receiving personal revelation you know.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not saying Scott that you personally accused him, but within this thread we have people raising their hands in not sustaining him if he was in one's Ward, there has been at least one call for Church Discipline, and too many comments about his stance being opposed to the brethren which at it's heart is not.

While recognizing that major change comes through revelation and recognizing that Revelation come through the brethren, he simply hopes for some specific change in the church but he indicates he is willing to wait on the Lord and his prophets.... he demanded nothing. If we throw out guys like this then while our rhetoric is that as Elder Uchtdorf said, people do not have to fit a mold in their thinking, our actual stance is be quiet and get in line.

When I hear Elder Uchtdorf and others in the FP and most of the Apostles speak, it is an effort to give members flexibility as long as they stay within the doctrine of the church and yet on this board every day I hear "tow the line" "be more like me".... "ohhhh he's different.... and that means he is dangerous."

I think you are mischaracterizing our objection to his action as intolerance for diversity and failure to follow the counsel of President [note the proper title] Uchtdorf. It's a matter of a currently serving bishop (who, for a while, identified himself as such) lending his pubic support to what is looking increasingly like an adversarial public pressure campaign exerted upon the leadership of the Church. See the new threads about the "female priesthood session" held last night, obviously meant to draw attention to the pressure campaign.

And, as I indicated earlier in another thread, I don't accept that President Uchtdorf's remarks amounted to an endorsement of such public protest-style pressure campaigns.

Regarding your anti-"tow-the-line" theme, I will reiterate what I said earlier about one of the demands of the office of bishop being alignment with the general leadership of the Church. At the very least, it seems to me, this ought to be in evidence with regard to the public positions one takes.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Obviously don't read much church history. These guys opposed each other often and publicly, though not on the essentials of Mormonism often (if at all).

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

I don't think it normally appropriate to flaunt ones Church credentials, unless it is done to say explain why you would know for example awkwardness of three men sitting in judgment on a woman in the presence of a male clerk feels, or say expressing an understanding of how you might know how the workload of a Ward gets shouldered, etc. However an acting Bishop has to be very careful in expressing his opinion to the general public because to say Catholics a Bishop has much greater organizational authority than a Mormon Bishop.

[CASteinman]

I think his statement has been removed from the website. I cannot find it now.

Perhaps wisdom has taken hold?

[MormonMason]

I think his statement has been removed from the website. I cannot find it now.

Perhaps wisdom has taken hold?

It definitely has been taken down, albeit the website owner claims that it is only temporarily. The reason for its 'temporary' removal is:

Due to difficulties having his profile up has caused the author of this profile, he has requested it be taken down temporarily.

[CASteinman]

It definitely has been taken down, albeit the website owner claims that it is only temporarily. The reason for its 'temporary' removal is:

Interesting. Well, he was not exercising good judgment. I can imagine some possible bad consequences.

It may be a learning experience for him. I have had some like that. They still ... make me sad to think back on ... the damage I caused inadvertently. One must be very careful what one says in positions of leadership. Very very careful.

Edited April 17, 2013 by CASteinman