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

[jwhitlock]

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.

Do you understand the concept of micromanagement? I suspect not, or you wouldn't have made this kind of rationalization.

[Stone holm]

Do you understand the concept of micromanagement? I suspect not, or you wouldn't have made this kind of rationalization.

Well I thought I was, but must defer to your superior knowledge on the matter. Although I have to confess that the wording of your comment sort of reminded me of some sanctimonious gossips from my childhood, but I am sure it was just coincidental to the phrases used.

[jwhitlock]

This is becoming rather interesting. We have a group whose activities have raised a number of red flags about what they're really doing, and we have the usual cast of characters coming out with various rationalizations about why we shouldn't judge them.

I don't know about anyone else, but a snake is a snake, and if I recognize one, and recognize the spiritual dangers it poses, I see absolutely no problem in pointing those dangers out.

These people are effectively demanding that church change its doctrines to conform to what they and the world want. Those telling us not to judge them for what they are, and not to point out how what they are doing conflicts with the gospel are in effect telling us that we should let such influences loose in the church to harm the saints. I find such misplaced demands for "tolerance" to be an example of exactly what we have been warned about in this and past General Conferences.

[Deborah]

I think the talks Saturday morning pretty much stated the church's stand on this issue of Priesthood. Why would they publicly attack a group who is so misguided? If there are individuals who need to be addressed it is up to their local leaders to do so.

[jwhitlock]

Well I thought I was, but must defer to your superior knowledge on the matter. Although I have to confess that the wording of your comment sort of reminded me of some sanctimonious gossips from my childhood, but I am sure it was just coincidental to the phrases used.

Tut, tut, it's not good form to call someone sanctimonious because they point out your misuse of made-up terms like "micro-judge".

[Deborah]

CFR on the bolded portion.

Some of us are quite familiar with the names and their reputations so it's a little strange to have someone CFR on what is pretty obvious.

[jwhitlock]

Some of us are quite familiar with the names and their reputations so it's a little strange to have someone CFR on what is pretty obvious.

And rather frustrating, which is perhaps what is intended.

[Calm]

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

"We’re beginning to open the dialogue,"

'Talking at the same time' is not showing much intent to dialogue, imo, (the 'talking' referring to the competing meeting).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Too those who push so hard, I will quote a scripture, "Ye know not what Ye ask"?

[Calm]

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.

Going ahead and acting as if they have already received revelation by holding an 'as if' priesthood session for women certainly presents them as already having decided what the Lord will be saying as opposed to being openminded and willing to say "Thy Will be done".

[Calm]

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.

However, there are certain meetings the Church makes an effort not to conflict with to the point of banning all others, for example FHE. It seems to me all the conference meetings also fall into this category.

[Stone holm]

Tut, tut, it's not good form to call someone sanctimonious because they point out your misuse of made-up terms like "micro-judge".

I of course was referring to people from my childhood, and having thought about it "micro-judging" is an incorrect word, macro-judging would have been the better made up word since it involves judging a whole group of people by who they have gathered with. Kind of like the concern that some expressed over Christ having associated with publicans. Like some people who consider Mormons to say all be John Birchers or of that ilk.

[rpn]

They called it a priestesshood meeting.

[why me]

Some of us are quite familiar with the names and their reputations so it's a little strange to have someone CFR on what is pretty obvious.

They are crossing the line into apostacy and eventually the church will have to react. Unfortunately by doing so there will be a lot of negative press. The simple truth is this: there are plenty of churches who have women pastors. But I know of none that have women priesthood holders: catholic, lds, or orthodox all have men holding the priesthood.

[why me]

They called it a priestesshood meeting.

Poor choice of wording since the church of satan is the only church I know that have priestesses.

[Calm]

I of course was referring to people from my childhood, and having thought about it "micro-judging" is an incorrect word, macro-judging would have been the better made up word since it involves judging a whole group of people by who they have gathered with.

It would be interesting to know how many of those who had previously supported Ordainwomen have withdrawn their support at this point because they felt they went too far.

Personally I was willing to see them previously as merely a little over anxious and certain about where the Church should be headed. However the simultaneous 'priestesshood session' is too similar to some stunts that anti-mormons have held such as the imitation of testimony meetings. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth where their previous comments did not. It does not seem like a simple sincere expression of their personal beliefs, instead it is an 'in your face' publicity stunt designed to get attention.

Edited April 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Poor choice of wording since the church of satan is the only church I know that have priestesses.

There have been plenty of others that have priestesses over the centuries. The temple ceremony uses the term. Edited April 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But I know of none that have women priesthood holders...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_priests

[Stone holm]

Poor choice of wording since the church of satan is the only church I know that have priestesses.

Uh, you might want to rethink that since we prepare women to become Priestesses in the Temple. And unless you consider all pagan churches to be churches of Satan you are simply wrong.

[WmLaw]

I'm somewhat familiar with Margaret Toscano as well. I was in her ward when she was the Gospel Doctrine instructor. I always found her to be intelligent, deep thinking, and sincere. I never doubted her love for the Savior or the the 'Church'.

I find it highly offensive when a person is denigrated based on their membership status.

[jwhitlock]

I of course was referring to people from my childhood, and having thought about it "micro-judging" is an incorrect word, macro-judging would have been the better made up word since it involves judging a whole group of people by who they have gathered with. Kind of like the concern that some expressed over Christ having associated with publicans. Like some people who consider Mormons to say all be John Birchers or of that ilk.

Not that Christ ever judged a group of people at all, like, ahem, Pharisees, scribes, the Sanhedrin, etc.

Actually, Toscano is just additional confirmation of where they're coming from. The group provides plenty of their own evidence of where they're coming from.

[jwhitlock]

I'm somewhat familiar with Margaret Toscano as well. I was in her ward when she was the Gospel Doctrine instructor. I always found her to be intelligent, deep thinking, and sincere. I never doubted her love for the Savior or the the 'Church'.

I find it highly offensive when a person is denigrated based on their membership status.

I find it highly offensive when a person gets on TV and denigrates her brother in law the way she did. Her whole performance in that situation was un-Christlike, and exhibited a deep antipathy towards the church, the priesthood, and the leadership of the church. What she exhibited there was in direct contradiction to what you've stated. My perception of her is not just "based on their membership status", as you so misrepresent it, but on what she actually does and says. She is, in fact, an apostate in word and deed.

[CASteinman]

They are crossing the line into apostacy and eventually the church will have to react. Unfortunately by doing so there will be a lot of negative press. The simple truth is this: there are plenty of churches who have women pastors. But I know of none that have women priesthood holders: catholic, lds, or orthodox all have men holding the priesthood.

Community of Christ.

[CASteinman]

Poor choice of wording since the church of satan is the only church I know that have priestesses.

"Druids" (so called), Wicca, some tribal religions.

[CASteinman]

Personally I was willing to see them previously as merely a little over anxious and certain about where the Church should be headed. However the simultaneous 'priestesshood session' is too similar to some stunts that anti-mormons have held such as the imitation of testimony meetings. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth where their previous comments did not. It is does not seem like a simple sincere expression of their personal beliefs, instead it is an 'in your face' publicity stunt designed to get attention.

You are right. While I do not presently feel that ordaining women would be right, I don't have a just asking the brethren about it. A website sort of bugs me, but its not the worst thing. However, this is crossing a line, creating a new religion and Church. Its an unfortunate turn because I have been working on a respectful little report about the website -- I was impressed. But now .. ehhh... not so much.