Female "Priesthood Session" Held At University Of Utah Saturday Night

[smac97]

Here: http://www.sltrib.co...on-lds.html.csp

For two days, LDS leaders — from male apostles to the faith’s top female presidents — have hammered home the message that men and women have different but equally vital roles.

Even so, Kate Kelly is not letting those pronouncements deter her from pursuing priesthood ordinations for Mormon women. In fact, she sees the contrasting perspectives as progress.

"We’re beginning to open the dialogue," said Kelly, a devout Mormon and human-rights attorney.

Ordain Women conducted a meeting Saturday night at the University of Utah’s Union Theatre at the same time Mormon men and boys were gathering for the all-male priesthood session of the faith’s General Conference.

Close to 100 people — including several men — attended the Ordain Women meeting.

Earlier in the day, LDS apostle M. Russell Ballard and Elaine S. Dalton, the church’s outgoing Young Women’s president, both spoke about the distinct roles of men and women.

"Our daily contributions of nurturing, teaching and caring for others may seem mundane, diminished, difficult and demeaning at times," Dalton said, "and yet as we remember that first line in the Young Women theme, ‘We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us,’ it will make all the difference in our relationships and our responses."

Ballard said that while men hold the priesthood, they need women to help them fully exercise it.

"Men and women have different but equally valued roles," he said. "Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman."

But those who attended the U. gathering — which one person dubbed a "priestesshood session" — argued that Mormon history shows women performed acts that now are considered priesthood ordinances, such as blessing the sick, and that the Relief Society, the church’s women’s organization, was patterned on LDS priesthood quorums.

"I am convinced that [Mormon founder] Joseph Smith saw the restoration of female priesthood as part of the restoration of all things," said former Mormon Margaret Toscano, a language arts professor at the U.

Chris Foster, an Orem resident and a friend of Kelly, said he became convinced that women should have the LDS priesthood when he recently blessed his infant daughter.

"When I gave my baby a blessing, [my wife] felt like she should be up there holding her, and I felt so, too," Robert said, adding he hoped his daughter one day would be ordained to the priesthood.

Even the Salt Lake Tribune (!) recognizes the adversarial nature of this event:

A) The article notes that this meeting was scheduled to conflict and compete with the Priesthood Session (which the men who attended this event missed);

B) The message of this event appears to conflict with the message given by Elder Ballard earlier in the day (thus the "But" separating the quote from Elder Ballard with the quote from the Margaret Toscano); and

C) The Trib juxtaposes the Church's position (reflected in comments made by Elder Ballard during General Conference) with the position of this group (presented by an excommunicate speaking on its behalf during a meeting timed to compete with General Conference).

I wonder how much traction this group, which purports to be headed by a "devout Mormon," will have now that it is openly aligning itself with, and even represented by, a person who was excommunicated for apostasy.

In all candor, this event looks like an in-your-face challenge to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2013 by smac97

[Bikeemikey]

Here: http://www.sltrib.co...on-lds.html.csp

Even the Salt Lake Tribune (!) recognizes the adversarial nature of this event:

A) The article notes that this meeting was scheduled to conflict and compete with the Priesthood Session (which the men who attended this event missed);

B) The message of this event appears to conflict with the message given by Elder Ballard earlier in the day (thus the "But" separating the quote from Elder Ballard with the quote from the Margaret Toscano); and

C) The Trib juxtaposes the Church's position (reflected in comments made by Elder Ballard during General Conference) with the position of this group (presented by an excommunicate speaking on its behalf during a meeting timed to compete with General Conference).

I wonder how much traction this group, which purports to be headed by a "devout Mormon," will have now that it is openly aligning itself with, and even represented by, a person who was excommunicated for apostasy.

In all candor, this event looks like an in-your-face challenge to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is a challenge to the church... i still fail to see how that is either bad or a big deal. We are allowed to challenge the church. There is a big difference to belonging to a group that is challenging the church and one that is anti-church (though I will be the first to agree that some membership overlap between these groups is likely).

It is entirely possible to have a strong testimony of the restored gospel, answer all your temple recommend questions honestly and received a recommend and still participate in a group like this (as it is currently operating).

Toughen up a little bit.

[jwhitlock]

I wonder how much traction this group, which purports to be headed by a "devout Mormon," will have now that it is openly aligning itself with, and even represented by, a person who was excommunicated for apostasy.

Toscano's endorsement - and their acceptance of her participation - is clear evidence that this movement and their rationalizations are not coming from God.

[Damien the Leper]

Toscano's endorsement - and their acceptance of her participation - is clear evidence that this movement and their rationalizations are not coming from God.

Says who?

[Bikeemikey]

Toscano's endorsement - and their acceptance of her participation - is clear evidence that this movement and their rationalizations are not coming from God.

Your statement is a bad rationalization of a pre-existing prejudice.

That said, I am not sure any rationalizations come from God; revelation and inspiration however does.

It could be possible for the founder to be inspired to create this organization whilst at the same time using bad arguments and poor rationalization to do so... we don't and cant know stuff like that, unless you have prayed about it and had some great response you have told us about.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[bluebell]

This makes me wonder, at what point does a campaign such as this become "kicking against the pricks"?

[jwhitlock]

Says who?

Anyone who has listened to Toscano, or people who have headed in the same direction she's going in, such as Sonya Johnson.

[jwhitlock]

Your statement is a bad rationalization of a pre-existing prejudice.

That said, I am not sure any rationalizations come from God; revelation and inspiration however does.

It could be possible for the founder to be inspired to create this organization whilst at the same time using bad arguments and poor rationalization to do so... we don't and cant know stuff like that, unless you have prayed about it and had some great response you have told us about.

I like your response. It's a textbook example of how people who are critical of the church are willing to look past all the red flags an event like this raises, and give them all the benefit of the doubt - including saying it's possible for them to be inspired - while attacking anyone who dares state the obvious problems with this situation.

[Bikeemikey]

This makes me wonder, at what point does a campaign such as this become "kicking against the pricks"?

Pricks refer to spiritual feelings... This could only be kicking against the pricks if they are rejecting the spiritual inclinations they are also feeling.

We are not in a position to make the judgement.

[smac97]

It is a challenge to the church... i still fail to see how that is either bad or a big deal. We are allowed to challenge the church.

I am not sure you are correct about that. The Brethren have said and are saying that the Priesthood is given only to men. There is a mechanism in place for making inquiries about doctrine, and changes to doctrine. Open and public challenges to the doctrines of the Church are not, I think, what God has in mind for the members of His Church.

There is a big difference to belonging to a group that is challenging the church and one that is anti-church (though I will be the first to agree that some membership overlap between these groups is likely).

I am not sure I see a "big difference."

Anti-Mormon Evangelical groups publicly speak out against the Church's doctrines because they disagree with those doctrines. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups engage in activities specifically scheduled during General Conference which are designed to distract and detract from the messages being given over the pulpit at General Conference. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups rely on support from excommunicated or apostate members to bolster their message against the doctrines of the Church. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups profess to have nothing but pure motives when they speak out against the church. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups nonetheless publicly speak out against the established doctrines of the Church, with the intention of altering or undermining those doctrines. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

It is entirely possible to have a strong testimony of the restored gospel, answer all your temple recommend questions honestly and received a recommend and still participate in a group like this (as it is currently operating).

Perhaps. It's also entirely possible that this group is veering toward dangerous territory, good intentions notwithstanding (after all, we all know that "good intentions" can be used as paving stones on certain paths).

Toughen up a little bit.

I do not think my comments have given any indication of fear or softness, so your comment is just a dig. Grow up a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I'd like to add more, but I'll do so after the current session.

[MorningStar]

Pricks refer to spiritual feelings... This could only be kicking against the pricks if they are rejecting the spiritual inclinations they are also feeling.

Do you have a reference for that?

[Bikeemikey]

I like your response. It's a textbook example of how people who are critical of the church are willing to look past all the red flags an event like this raises, and give them all the benefit of the doubt - including saying it's possible for them to be inspired - while attacking anyone who dares state the obvious problems with this situation.

Except I am not critical of the church and am fully aware of the "risks of the situation".

I have also not attacked you.

I did make an assumption that you did not attend their conference. Based on my assumption, you could have only formed your opinion of what the inclusion of a specific individual meant based on information pre-dating the conference. That is you carried pre-judgements into your predictions of that the group are... This is prejudice. It is not a criticism... I constantly act with prejudice... It is however what you did.

As for giving them the benefit of the doubt... The church has the luxury of being able to do this. We will not change based on anything else other than revelation... As such we can extend the benefit the doubt to those who want to engage in dialogue with us about who and what we are. If we are wrong in extending the benefit of the doubt it still doesn't effect us negatively.

Given that we won't change with out revelation what are the red flags? Are you concerned we will be forced to? Are you worried that this movement is going to finally break the reliance the church has always had on leadership by revelation?

The only change his group can cause is changed supported by god an revealed to the church leadership... Why should I be afraid? Why do I need to resist them rather than listen to them?

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[bluebell]

Pricks refer to spiritual feelings... This could only be kicking against the pricks if they are rejecting the spiritual inclinations they are also feeling.

We are not in a position to make the judgement.

Not so.

As I read the use of that term in the scriptures it is simply going against God's will, even when we think we aren't.

Saul was completely sure that he was obeying God by persecuting the saints. He was wrong.

Edited April 7, 2013 by bluebell

[Teancum]

Fascinating. I wonder how much the Church leadership will tolerate from such groups before they take action against those who are members. The Church seems reluctant to discipline those who protest in public these days. Will they just ignore them and let them have their say>

[jwhitlock]

Except I am not critical of the church and am fully aware of the "risks of the situation".

I have also not attacked you.

I did make an assumption that you did not attend their conference. Based on my assumption, you could have only formed your opinion of what the inclusion of a specific individual meant based on information pre-dating the conference. That is you carried pre-judgements into your predictions of that the group are... This is prejudice. It is not a criticism... I constantly act with prejudice... It is however what you did.

As for giving them the benefit of the doubt... The church has the luxury of being able to do this. We will not change based on anything else other than revelation... As such we can extend the benefit the doubt to those who want to engage in dialogue with us about who and what we are. If we are wrong in extending the benefit of the doubt it still doesn't effect us negatively.

Given that we won't change with out revelation what are the red flags? Are you concerned we will be forced to? Are you worried that this movement is going to finally break the reliance the church has always had on leadership by revelation?

The only change his group can cause is changed supported by god an revealed to the church leadership... Why should I be afraid? Why do I need to resist them rather than listen to them?

Smac has answered your sophistries very well, so see his response. I agree wholeheartedly with it. This group crosses a number of lines that make it problematic to give them the benefit of the doubt as to what their motivations really are.

[Bikeemikey]

Do you have a reference for that?

D&C 122:37-38

That is my interpretation of these verses... I should have been more clear of that in my quote.

In the context of the verses the phrase pricks to me seems to refer to pricks if the spirit. I seem to also remember a couple of talks a out pricks of the spirit (looking for that now).

[bluebell]

D&C 122:37-38

That is my interpretation of these verses... I should have been more clear of that in my quote.

In the context of the verses the phrase pricks to me seems to refer to pricks if the spirit. I seem to also remember a couple of talks a out pricks of the spirit (looking for that now).

If I'm remembering right, the NT the term refers to beasts of burden such as donkeys who would kick against sharp spikes called pricks when they did not want to go in the direction the driver of the cart or plow wanted them to go.

[Damien the Leper]

Anyone who has listened to Toscano, or people who have headed in the same direction she's going in, such as Sonya Johnson.

You didn't answer my question. You said it was not of God. Back up that claim. How do you know?

[Bikeemikey]

If I'm remembering right, the NT the term refers to beasts of burden such as donkeys who would kick against sharp spikes called pricks when they did not want to go in the direction the driver of the cart or plow wanted them to go.

The term in the NT (acts 9:5 and 26:14) relates to those not willing to follow the prompting of The Lord.

When read in conjunction with acts 2:37 a prick seems to be spiritual in origin.

Not sure about donkeys.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[jwhitlock]

You didn't answer my question. You said it was not of God. Back up that claim. How do you know?

I answered your question. Read my response again.

[MorningStar]

I wonder if any men will have their own Relief Societ Broadcast and make each other soup and salad beforehand? Now that would be fun.

[Bikeemikey]

I am not sure you are correct about that. The Brethren have said and are saying that the Priesthood is given only to men. There is a mechanism in place for making inquiries about doctrine, and changes to doctrine. Open and public challenges to the doctrines of the Church are not, I think, what God has in mind for the members of His Church.

I am not sure I see a "big difference."

Anti-Mormon Evangelical groups publicly speak out against the Church's doctrines because they disagree with those doctrines. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups engage in activities specifically scheduled during General Conference which are designed to distract and detract from the messages being given over the pulpit at General Conference. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups rely on support from excommunicated or apostate members to bolster their message against the doctrines of the Church. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups profess to have nothing but pure motives when they speak out against the church. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Anti-Mormon groups nonetheless publicly speak out against the established doctrines of the Church, with the intention of altering or undermining those doctrines. The "Ordain Women" group is doing that.

Perhaps. It's also entirely possible that this group is veering toward dangerous territory, good intentions notwithstanding (after all, we all know that "good intentions" can be used as paving stones on certain paths).

I do not think my comments have given any indication of fear or softness, so your comment is just a dig. Grow up a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am now five years older - that's for the advice - you're correct - my last comment was an unnecessary dig... I will refrain.

As for the rest... I don't actually disagree with anything you have said.

This group may be another anti-group... I think it is to early to tell.

I just personally don't mind if info to church with people who feel really strongly that women should have the priesthood. There is a line on what they can so as protest of the issue... I don't now what that is yet, all I know is that for me they have not crossed it yet.

[Deborah]

The problem I have with the group is that they use anti-Mormon and apostate sources to support their stand. Or they use legitimate sources and take them out of context totally twisting the meaning.

[Teancum]

The problem I have with the group is that they use anti-Mormon and apostate sources to support their stand. Or they use legitimate sources and take them out of context totally twisting the meaning.

CFR on bolded item.