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

[CASteinman]

What ever came of the female priesthood session? Was it well attended? Anything news-worthy come out of it? Were they able to talk God into giving woman priesthood authority? Or, was this yet another in a series of relative non-events?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That meeting was supposed to be a big kick off. As far as I can tell.. nothing has happened since.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

Okay. That doesn't change the point, though, that there is a vast relational difference between a secular goverment and its constituency and the LDS Church and its members. There is (or should) also a significant difference in how church members air their concerns about matters of church doctrine, policy, practice, etc. as compared to how the constituents of a secular government air their concerns about matters of secular governance.

Still, this does not negate the fact that hierarchical institutions generally function similarly.

I understand and respect that. But members of the LDS Church believe that the Brethren are in alignment with the Shepherd, which is why Jesus said "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

There is, of course, wiggle room in this. The Brethren are not perfect. They can and do make mistakes. Church policies can need revision, and on occasion are revised. But at the macro level, LDS belief is incompatible with believing in Jesus by "looking past prophets." So while that method may work for you, it won't work for us.

I understand and respect this. For me personally, personal revelation straight from the source, is the authoritative solution.

See above. I think my post was a work in progress and overlapped with your apology.

No, that would not be best. The "Church" is more than its members. Its members did not create the Book of Mormon and other moder scriptures. Its members are not the fount of revelation and priesthood authority. Its members did not organize it of their own accord. This is God's Church, and we are invited to join it and move its work along. But we don't own it (like, say, we own the government).

This is not just a point of semantics. If we equate the Church with its members, then it is merely a social group, one that can change its doctrines based on the opinions of the members, one that could accommodate giving women the priesthood based on a majority vote or some other type of consensus. But we aren't a social group. Our doctrines do not originate with us, nor does priesthood authority originate with us. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for church members to disregard what the Church is and instead to treat it like some sort of country club, with factions forming to change how the rules are written and who gets to be in charge.

And see...this is where you kinda lose me. D1 and D2 are hardly revelations! They are responses to social agitations and government threats of their times.

The person who started the OrdainWomen website is on record as demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will do." Do you see how fundamentally incompatible such an attitude is with the concept of prophetic authority and continuing revelation?

More in the next post.

-Smac

This here , I will definitely agree with you. Unfortunately, in previous posts I maintained that attitude and I still apologize for that.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, there is.

No. Either it is a maritally shaped relationship or it is not. This is one area where "kinda like" and "similar" don't come within a hundred miles of making the cut.

I assume you refer here to communications between bishops and stake presidencies, and between stake presidencies and area authority seventies, and between area authority seventies and area presidencies and general leadership. Is that correct?

But to directly answer your question: It happens all the time. I am in my ward's bishopric. We have ward councils once a month to discuss the status of the ward and address any concerns that have come up (I should point out that these meetings include numerous sisters, who are active participants in the meetings). We also have a BYC (Bishop's Youth Committee) which involves leaders of the young men and the young women. We also meet separately as a bishopric to discuss sensitive issues that are better left undisclosed to the ward council.

To answer the question of the first paragraph in above quote: No. I'm talking about a meeting between the primary pianist and a seventy or an apostle. I observed a meeting once at a Catholic church in which a Cardinal came from Rome to speak specifically to this congregation (and not just those in leadership positions) about certain concerns. Such a meeting as this is what I'm talking about.

You must not get out much. There is dialogue all over the place in the LDS Church. That is not the problem. Rather, I think the problem is with malcontents who disregard what the Church claims to be, and who instead take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to "dialogue" (such as the founder of the OrdainWomen website declaring that she wants to priesthood and "nothing less will do"), and who then falsely accuse the Church of not listening.

"Where is the dialogue" indeed. Tell me, Val, what dialogue can be had between a Church claiming to be led by God and a person who demands a change in doctrine, and that "nothing less will do?"

I'm not sure that those who are discontent are disavowing what the church claims to be. Do I agree with their extreme methods? No. Do I empathize with their agitation? Somewhat.

However, after your willingness to point out my own "my-way-or-the-highway" perspective, I have to agree with you on the extremism being presented by the person who created the site.

OTOH, I have to step back a little and and consider claims being made. Whether I believe claims are fact or not is absolutely irrelevant. Hence: The church leadership claims to be led by God. Say that God is actually pushing the leadership to allow for female ordination and has been doing so since the mid 19th century (post-Joseph Smith). Yet the brethren continue on as a male authoritarianism (no negative slur intended by the use of authoritarianism). It is insufficient, for me at least, for membership or leadership to assert the positions of leadership as a valid response and that they know what they are doing and have known all along. I'm not trying to say there is some malicious ulterior motive involved. I'm curious as to whether or not God is trying to say something and the church leadership isn't paying attention or just not listening. This is possible. Again, I mean nothing negative by what I have said. I agree with you, they are men just like anyone else. They are limited to their human fallacies no matter the capacity in which they speak or are acting.

You are dodging the point. If you had a concern about your employer, would you start up a publicity campaign against her? Would you issue press releases criticizing the way she runs her business? Would you talk to media outlets to voice your demands? Is such an adversarial approach feasible in most employer-employee relationships? Honestly, I think not.

I'm not dodging. If I have a problem with the employer, I am going to go to that person and not an assistant manager or an on shift supervisor. I have no use for those middle persons if they cannot affect any change. I would not publicly criticize her but I would constructively criticize her one on one. I have done so in the past and I will continue to do so. I make no demands of her. The difference in the scenarios here is that I can get an audience with my employer, voice my concerns one on one, constructively criticize and be criticized, etc but this isn't possible with the church. A member can't just make an appointment with Pres. Monson and do the same. This is most unfortunate.

Evidently not, seeing that you cannot identify a single cogent argument against the ERA.

Looking back, I can empathize with the perspective that the anti-ERA activists wanted to maintain a traditional position concerning womanhood. Can I respect that? Yes. Do I agree with it? That doesn't matter. So long as the traditionalists and the others can live harmoniously and in coherence with their conscience (legally of course) then they should be able to have at it. IOW, I'm retracting, once again, my pig-headed bigotry.

Okay. Might a similar bias be clouding your perception of the issue under discussion here (whether LDS women should receive the priesthood)? You have expressed elsewhere your antipathy for organized religion. The LDS Church is one of the most organized there is. I wonder, then, if you have a sufficient grasp of the LDS perspective.

Yes, my bias can be clouding. For me, I'm not looking for a church to tell me what to do or how to dictate my day to day life. I don't believe that is what Jesus intended in the NT and therefore I reject it for my personal life. I understand the LDS perspective. I just believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ essentially transcends sex and gender. Men and women are more than vessels to procreate and rear children and to act in a priesthood capacity. But I would like to see a full balance rather than assigned gender roles.

Well, Val, ya did. Openly and candidly.

I apologize for that.

I can relate. Mainstream "news" media, academia, Hollywood, etc. combine to shove all sorts of nonsense down my throat these days, all the while totally ignoring important stories that don't fit their preferred narrative (witness the recent near-total media blackout on coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial).

This is true, which is why I don't rely on the mainstream liberalism or traditionalism to influence my belief systems in any extreme direction. I take things into consideration and I'll either apply them or I won't.

Again, that seems like a very knee-jerkish way to go. You avoid tradition not on its merits, but because it's tradition? Have you thought about the possibility that some traditions are "the better way," which is why those ways have become traditions?

If tradition ultimately works then I can embrace it but I won't do so unless I have tried another way as well.

By the way, might I ask what your relationship is to the Church? Feel free to not disclose this if you so prefer. From the substance of some of your comments, I had thought you were not LDS, but you have indicated otherwise. Knowing your perspective on the Church might help avoid misunderstandings on my part.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is somewhat difficult to answer without causing confusion. I apologize ahead of time if I do confuse you. Culturally and somewhat theologically I consider myself Mormon. I am not a member of the LDS church any longer. More often than not, I am defending Mormonism to its critics. However, based on the exchanges we have had on this thread, I fear and have observed that it seems I am talking out both sides of my mouth. This is a sore deficiency on my part in which I need to correct. I hope that answers your question.

[smac97]

Val,

Okay. That doesn't change the point, though, that there is a vast relational difference between a secular goverment and its constituency and the LDS Church and its members. There is (or should) also a significant difference in how church members air their concerns about matters of church doctrine, policy, practice, etc. as compared to how the constituents of a secular government air their concerns about matters of secular governance.

Still, this does not negate the fact that hierarchical institutions generally function similarly.

You are, once again, dodging/ignoring/refusing to engage the point. Ah, well.

No, that would not be best. The "Church" is more than its members. Its members did not create the Book of Mormon and other moder scriptures. Its members are not the fount of revelation and priesthood authority. Its members did not organize it of their own accord. This is God's Church, and we are invited to join it and move its work along. But we don't own it (like, say, we own the government).

This is not just a point of semantics. If we equate the Church with its members, then it is merely a social group, one that can change its doctrines based on the opinions of the members, one that could accommodate giving women the priesthood based on a majority vote or some other type of consensus. But we aren't a social group. Our doctrines do not originate with us, nor does priesthood authority originate with us. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for church members to disregard what the Church is and instead to treat it like some sort of country club, with factions forming to change how the rules are written and who gets to be in charge.

And see...this is where you kinda lose me. D1 and D2 are hardly revelations!

Then our discussion must come to an end. I do not expect you to accept the validity of the LDS position, but I do expect you to not radically re-define the LDS position to suit your criticisms of it. OD1 and OD2 are scripture to the Latter-day Saints. There is no reasonable dispute on this point. None. Zilch. Nada. As soon as we disregard what LDS consider as scripture unto themselves, then there are no parameters allowing for reasoned discussion/disagreement.

They are responses to social agitations and government threats of their times.

Right. Out of curiosity, do you likewise characterize Joseph taking Mary and Jesus into Egypt as described in Matthew 2 to be a "response to social agitations and government threats" and not the result of revelation?

There are dozens of scriptural examples of God giving instructions to His children in response to the circumstances "of their times," including "social agitations" and "government threats." The Wise Men evading Herod, having been instructed to do so by a revelatory dream. Lot fleeing Sodom, having been instructed to do so by an angel. I could list many more. Do you reject all of these? Or just the specifically Mormon ones?

The person who started the OrdainWomen website is on record as demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will do." Do you see how fundamentally incompatible such an attitude is with the concept of prophetic authority and continuing revelation?

This here , I will definitely agree with you.

Hmm. Your perception of revelation eludes me. You accept the concept in general, but reject the idea that God might reveal information to His children when they face "social agitations" and "government threats?" Where did you get such a limitation on revelation? Under what parameters do you imagine God can provide revelation?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

At this point, we are obviously talking past each other. You're right. Our conversation on the subject ends now.

[smac97]

At this point, we are obviously talking past each other. You're right. Our conversation on the subject ends now.

Sounds good. I hope we can part cordially. I apologize for any offense I have given.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

Sounds good. I hope we can part cordially. I apologize for any offense I have given.

Thank you,

-Smac

Of course! I apologize as well.

[CASteinman]

Sounds good. I hope we can part cordially. I apologize for any offense I have given.

Thank you,

-Smac

Of course! I apologize as well.

I have eaten something that is not agreeing with me -- and I am feeling ill tonight. So, I was just about to turn in.

Just wanted let you know that I appreciate the great example you guys have set. Even though I am feeling unwell, this series of posts made me feel a bit better.

God bless you both.

[Nathair/|\]

Thanks to Dr. Greg Smith for sharing this:

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerRubySlippers.html

[Damien the Leper]

I have eaten something that is not agreeing with me -- and I am feeling ill tonight. So, I was just about to turn in.

Just wanted let you know that I appreciate the great example you guys have set. Even though I am feeling unwell, this series of posts made me feel a bit better.

God bless you both.

Same to you sir! I hope you feel better soon.

[smac97]

So here's an interview with Kate Kelly, the founder of OrdainWomen.org, about the reaction to the website:

Overwhelmingly positive. And we’ve received many more profiles. Like from Sharyl, who serves in the stake Relief Society (women’s auxiliary) Presidency. Her profile is beautiful. It speaks to her role as a mother and her leadership role in her community. It also encourages us to imagine a different future for the LDS Church: “Imagine a Church where your beloved grandmother is your stake president.”

David is a currently serving bishop who in his profile says he sees within his own ward a void where women are not active in leadership roles. He wants to inspire others to be brave and speak out.

"David" is the bishop who has been under discussion on this board regarding his vocalized support of this movement. But what about Sharyl? Is it any less appropriate for a member of a state RS presidency to speak out publicly against the Church?

Here's another bit of the interview, where Ms. Kelly really steps in it:

The response from LDS Church spokespeople has been that “equality” of the sexes is church doctrine but that the Church’s practice of ordination follows the model of Jesus in the early Christian church.

We completely agree with the Church that “all are alike unto God,” as the Book of Mormon states. We are enthusiastic that LDS spokespeople have indicated that “equality is the doctrine of the Church.” If the Church is modeled after the original Church, it’s important to remember that Christ was radically inclusive of women for his times—even women who were outcast in society. Women who were seen as sinners, radicals, and outcasts, he included. We would like to follow in that Christ-like example of inclusion of women.

The insinuation in that last remark, that the LDS Church not giving the priesthood to women means that the Church is acting in an un-Christ-like, is rather pernicious.

And this one:

On Saturday, April 6, at 6 p.m. , we will meet at the University of Utah Student Union building, during the priesthood session of the LDS Church’s worldwide General Conference—a session which we are not permitted to attend. We will meet each up, introduce ourselves and the movement, offer women’s ordination 101 on the history of women’s ordination in the LDS Church, and hold breakout sessions to get individual thoughts on ordination and how we can move forward as a group.

Well, the menfolk of the Church are typically not invited to RS activities (including, I believe, the RS session of General Conference), yet she apparently has no problem with that.

Thanks,

[bluebell]

What's the point of envisioning a time when a grandmother can be a stake president? Is there some idea that the grandmother, by virture of being a woman, would do a better job?

And if that's NOT what is being implied, then what does it matter if the president is always male, as long as they are doing a good job and trying to follow the guidance of the spirit? Is there anything to be gained by wanting a woman in that position?

[smac97]

What's the point of envisioning a time when a grandmother can be a stake president? Is there some idea that the grandmother, by virture of being a woman, would do a better job?

I think, rather, that the suggestion is that a woman could do as good a job as a man.

It's a suggestion, however, that appears to be posed independent of what God has to say about it (or worse, that the Brethren are currently acting unrighteously in withholding the priesthood from women, and that women have a "right" to it).

And if that's NOT what is being implied, then what does it matter if the president is always male, as long as they are doing a good job and trying to follow the guidance of the spirit? Is there anything to be gained by wanting a woman in that position?

There is a lot of talk about women not being "full" participants in the Church because they don't have the priesthood. I disagree with that, but that's the idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

“Imagine a Church where your beloved grandmother is your stake president.”

I would have moved...as much as I love my grandmothers, it would have been a recipe for disaster, imo. Same thing with my mom who is, imo, the closest thing to perfect I have ever known. Edited April 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The insinuation in that last remark, that the LDS Church not giving the priesthood to women means that the Church is acting in an un-Christ-like, is rather pernicious.

And it is extending the inclusiveness of Christ to areas where there is no evidence he included women in. There was not a female apostle in the 12, for example. I know of no evidence where Christ appointed a woman to a position of church authority. That he welcomed women as his disciples, to serve, to learn, to be part of the community, certainly...but how is this different from what the Church has always done?

[Calm]

Well, the menfolk of the Church are typically not invited to RS activities (including, I believe, the RS session of General Conference)

Some men are invited and some even talk at Women's Conference as well as at the local level, but generally open to attending, no. Edited April 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[sheilauk]

Kate Kelly is quoted above as saying that "we" are not permitted to attend the priesthoodn session of conference. Perhaps I should let her know that I have attended that session at my stake centre. Women may not be in the conference centre(the tablenacle? sp?)and men may not be there during RS & YW,but there is nothing to stop men/women watching the session/conference on the tv,internet, stake centre and reading the talks when they are published in the énsign! Its not as exclusionary as she maintains. She also apparently says that the response has been positive - i guess I need to somehow respond that i dont agree with the website in any way because i dont want her or anyone speaking for me and i don't want or need the priesthood to be happy with who i am and my role and leadership in the Church.

[Stone holm]

And it is extending the inclusiveness of Christ to areas where there is no evidence he included women in. There was not a female apostle in the 12, for example. I know of no evidence where Christ appointed a woman to a position of church authority. That he welcomed women as his disciples, to serve, to learn, to be part of the community, certainly...but how is this different from what the Church has always done?

There were also only Jews among the original Twelve, so do we conclude from that what?

[CASteinman]

There were also only Jews among the original Twelve, so do we conclude from that what?

Its irrelevant to women and the priesthood.

There were, after all, Jewish women if they were to be called. Assuming that (on the contrary) Jesus was an equal opportunity leader and would have chosen women as easily as men, then the probability that Jesus specifically chose men because they were the approved gender is .9998.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

There were also only Jews among the original Twelve, so do we conclude from that what?

We can conclude that the Jews that were called to the original Twelve, were not women. When we add to the mix other occasions where Christ personally called people to the Twelve, we, or at least those of us not agenda-driven to the point of missing the obvious, rightly get the sense that being a Jew isn't requisite to being an apostle, but being a man is. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

There were also only Jews among the original Twelve, so do we conclude from that what?

That Christ called Jews to the Twelve so he's not a good example to point to if we want to demonstrate that nonJews can be apostles...and from other scriptures we read it took a revelation for the gospel to be taken to the Gentiles so it would seem that those who were there probably saw it that way as well.

She is the one claiming that Christ did certain things that included women and therefore it follows that the Church should be allowing women to have the priesthood. Her logic contains too great of a leap. Christ limited some things and opened up others. The evidence that she is claiming actually contradicts her position unless one expands Christ's actions of inclusiveness to a level where it could mean anything...and therefore pretty much means nothing.

Edited April 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

That Christ called Jews to the Twelve so he's not a good example to point to if we want to demonstrate that nonJews can be apostles...and from other scriptures we read it took a revelation for the gospel to be taken to the Gentiles so it would seem that those who were there probably saw it that way as well.

She is the one claiming that Christ did certain things that included women and therefore it follows that the Church should be allowing women to have the priesthood. Her logic contains too great of a leap. Christ limited some things and opened up others. The evidence that she is claiming actually contradicts her position unless one expands Christ's actions of inclusiveness to a level where it could mean anything...and therefore pretty much means nothing.

My ultimate earthly authority discussed this over breakfast this morning and she was going with this same logic, then I said, "Well we say the calling of an Apostle is to be a special witness of The Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection. As a result some have argued that Mary was the first Apostle because she was the first to see the resurrected Savior and she was the first instructed to go bear witness of Him. She was quiet and then said, well I guess it's not that big of a leap then given what happens in the Temple anyway.

[CASteinman]

My ultimate earthly authority discussed this over breakfast this morning and she was going with this same logic, then I said, "Well we say the calling of an Apostle is to be a special witness of The Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection. As a result some have argued that Mary was the first Apostle because she was the first to see the resurrected Savior and she was the first instructed to go bear witness of Him. She was quiet and then said, well I guess it's not that big of a leap then given what happens in the Temple anyway.

You tricked your wife with bad logic. not good.