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

[Bikeemikey]

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.

So you don't have an issue with their stand, per se, just the way the articulate it?

As for the rest, CFR please.

[Questing Beast]

Just a side note of interest, to me at least: women in the initiatory initiate each other, "priesthood holders", that is men, do not function in that ordinance. Likewise at the "veil", women stand between "the Lord" and the seeker, not men. That means that any ordinance can be allowed to women to perform. It just has to be announced as such. This means, to me, that women already hold "priesthood" by virtue of their gender, but men have (temporarily) been "given" the keys. When the keys are extended to women fully there will be no difference vis-a-vis gender between ordinances performed by men or women. And why should there be?...

[teddyaware]

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>

Could it be that the non-interventioist, hands-off approach the Church has taken on groups that sponsor events such as this one is an example of allowing the wheat and the tares to grow together untli they are fully ripe? Perhaps it's wiser to allow those among these groups who may eventually come to their senses and repent of their rebellion, to do so on their own without being compelled to humble themselves.

Edited April 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[Deborah]

So you don't have an issue with their stand, per se, just the way the articulate it?

As for the rest, CFR please.

Oh, I have an issue with their stand. I think they confuse the administrative aspects of the Priesthood with the power of the Priesthood, which women already participate in.

One of the big arguments is equating this with how the blacks got the Priesthood by just such a movement. To compare this issue to the lifting of the ban shows a gross misrepresentation of how that took place. They continually claim that church leadership is exercising unrighteous dominion and harming women's progression/salvation by not ordaining them.

Here is from their website:

This lack of female authority does not stop at the church doors. The Church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men preside over their wives and families, thus preserving an antiquated and unequal model in both the domestic and ecclesiastical realms.

While many thoughtful men in priesthood leadership positions make decisions that include input from women, the male governing structure of the Church means that women’s voices are inevitably left out, overlooked, and discounted.

Since leadership and positional authority in Mormonism is inextricably tied to priesthood ordination, it is clear that Mormon women must be ordained in order to be full and equal participants in their Church.

I think this statement shows a gross misunderstanding of the roles of men and women in the church. They are denouncing the Proclamation on the Family and pretty much denouncing those who gave it to us as being outdated and promoting inequality. Another statement from their website : "Equality is not about sameness; it is about removing obstacles to access and opportunity. We refuse to tolerate inequity in our secular institutions. Ordain Women asserts that we must also reject it in our homes and religious communities." Their whole movement seems to assume it is men, not God that have set this policy, which makes me wonder why they would remain in the church when they question the leadership as actually receiving revelation.

[Deborah]

I would also add that if these women were sincere in asking God about being able to received the Priesthood ordination then they would do as others have done throughout history, prayed to God and quietly inquired of church leaders rather than making it a public accusation and demand which smacks of rebellion and puts church leaders in a negative light.

[Teancum]

I would also add that if these women were sincere in asking God about being able to received the Priesthood ordination then they would do as others have done throughout history, prayed to God and quietly inquired of church leaders rather than making it a public accusation and demand which smacks of rebellion and puts church leaders in a negative light.

CFR on the bolded item. I really think you are overlaying your own predisposed views on this and really have no idea about what you claim as to whether it is factual or not. Nor is it right of you to question their sincerity. Just because they don't agree with your a priori assumptions and conservative orthodox view of things LDS does not mean they are not sincere.

[CASteinman]

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

Yeah it does. I lost a bit of respect.

[CASteinman]

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).

You would not be able to answer all of the recommend questions at this point.

[Deborah]

CFR on the bolded item.

Seriously? Study church history. Even on the Priesthood the black saints in Africa asked the prophet when the could receive missionaries. They waited patiently for a long time. I mean did you ever hear anything about this except after the fact. It was done quietly and patiently.

I really think you are overlaying your own predisposed views on this and really have no idea about what you claim as to whether it is factual or not. Nor is it right of you to question their sincerity. Just because they don't agree with your a priori assumptions and conservative orthodox view of things LDS does not mean they are not sincere.

I don't question their sincerity at all. I just think they are misguided and misunderstand the plan God has. I have used their own words and seen their views on FB.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Deborah

[CASteinman]

We are allowed to challenge the church.

Can you provide references on how it is permitted for us to challenge the Apostles and the First Presidency, particularly on matters of doctrine?

[jwhitlock]

Seriously? Study church history. Even on the Priesthood the black saints in Africa asked the prophet when the could receive missionaries. They waited patiently for a long time. I mean did you ever hear anything about this except after the fact. It was done quietly and patiently.

This is a great example.

The tone of those who held this meeting reminds me more of the time when the princes of the children of Israel challenged Moses in the wilderness. That ended rather badly for them.

[jwhitlock]

You would not be able to answer all of the recommend questions at this point.

This is a significant point. The inclusion of Toscano into the mix, an apostate who seeks to tear down the church, clearly categorizes the group as one that opposes the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[CASteinman]

This is a significant point. The inclusion of Toscano into the mix, an apostate who seeks to tear down the church, clearly categorizes the group as one that opposes the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You also could not claim to make a good faith effort to attend all of your meetings. You would have missed one last night.

[Stone holm]

Well I don't know the players involved so I would be a little reluctant to endorse a gathering featuring an excommunicate. Having said that and assuming it only conflicted in time with the Priesthood session, I don't see it as competing, after all we hold Priesthood meetings and Relief Society at the same time on Sunday. As I recall the Church even set up an alternative group for Africans to run in some areas before the Priesthood was extended. If this is of God then something will come of it, and if not it won't . I mentioned that the Church was making some changes to Scripture headings, Mission leadership councils, and as to women offering prayer at GA to soften its tone and image. He is inactive because of his wife's views as to the political stances of the church, she is a Reformed Jew. His response was, "oh to make it appear less sexist" I shrugged, yep that pretty much sums it up.

[Bikeemikey]

Can you provide references on how it is permitted for us to challenge the Apostles and the First Presidency, particularly on matters of doctrine?

Those currently doing so are still in the church.

[Stone holm]

Those currently doing so are still in the church.

Doctrine?

[jwhitlock]

Those currently doing so are still in the church.

Irrelevant. That is no indication that what they are doing is approved of by the church, or that their challenges are right.

[CASteinman]

Those currently doing so are still in the church.

That does not mean it is permitted. I am still asking for a reference that it is permitted, not merely tolerated.

[Stone holm]

Irrelevant. That is no indication that what they are doing is approved of by the church, or that their challenges are right.

I would doubt they are approved, the question is whether they are disapproved. Have they been officially denounced by the Church? If not we are speculating in that regard.

[Stone holm]

That does not mean it is permitted. I am still asking for a reference that it is permitted, not merely tolerated.

Permitted? Is this a game of mother may I?

[CASteinman]

Permitted? Is this a game of mother may I?

when it comes to rebellion.. probably that is as close to permission as you will get.

[jwhitlock]

I would doubt they are approved, the question is whether they are disapproved. Have they been officially denounced by the Church? If not we are speculating in that regard.

If you were familiar with the church, you would know that the leadership in Salt Lake doesn't micromanage its membership at that level.

That doesn't stop us, who become familiar with them, for recognizing them for what they really are.

[WmLaw]

This is a significant point. The inclusion of Toscano into the mix, an apostate who seeks to tear down the church, clearly categorizes the group as one that opposes the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

CFR on the bolded portion.

[Stone holm]

If you were familiar with the church, you would know that the leadership in Salt Lake doesn't micromanage its membership at that level.

That doesn't stop us, who become familiar with them, for recognizing them for what they really are.

Well I don't know them, so I can't issue judgment as to who "they really are", and if the Church isn't micro-managing them I would be hesitant to micro-judge them.

[jwhitlock]

CFR on the bolded portion.

What's with the irrelevant CFRs? Evidently you believe that Toscano - who has been excommunicated for apostasy - is intent on building the church up. Why don't you provide proof for that?

Or you can start with Whitney's PBS production about the Mormons where she gave Toscano a stage to spout off about the church, and use Google (it's not hard, you know) to find out more about her viewpoints.