Caroline Kline : Mormon Women Have Their Say

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Equality also doesn't mean you have to have the same roles.

We have a winner.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course not. But it does mean that everyone should be allowed the roles they desire. Again, equal opportunity. Not forced sameness.

Sorry but this is not how it works. You don't get the callings you desire or lack there of.  Equal opportunity? For what? That idea is totally foriegn in the scriptures with regards to the priesthood and women holding it. The only time this is even talked about is in the D&C with regards to all having the same chance to accept or reject the gospel. Nothing else is talking about have an equal opportunity. If I want to be a bishop and I desire it should I get that? No. And no were do we find that concept taught. We even learn that no man can take this honor unto himself but he that was given it.

 

And forced sameness is exactly what you are talking about. You just don't want to call it that. If women had the preisthood they would be just like a man in his roles. There would be no difference.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you saying that women's unique role in this life is the ability (for some of them) to get pregnant? (I'm not trying to be obtuse)

That is one of them. It is not the only. Do you not think that a women having the ability to bear children unique, when compared to a man? I mean this really is simple. If not then explain. Because I would love a great explination for it.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[SamIam]

Sam, I take the stakes as seriously as it sounds like you do.  Perhaps we come to different conclusions.  I can't really tell from your comments.  Rest assured that the order my wife and I establish is exactly what we believe the Lord intends.  And we'll keep counseling with him about it. 

 

There is one point I'm sure my wife would quibble with you about - the part about "being given" to another if I were to fail.  She's much more than a mere gift.  She's a full-fledged independent agent acting according to her own designs.  Unlike in traditional civil ceremonies, no one "gave her away" to me at our sealing.  She alone made that choice.  Whatever happens to me, she will continue to make her own choice.  She's no one's prize to be given.

 

Thus you perhaps can understand the nature of my posts.  I am not trying to debate semantics with you as you have made the disscussion on "given".  I am simply using the terminologies of the scriptures and allowing you to take it as that meaning should be received.  However, that very discussion on the term "given" is my point.  This could never be misunderstood between you and I if there was not a wedge of societies undermining of the use of certain terms and the connotations society assigns to those terms.  If we had both been speaking from a common point of direction you would not have mistaken my intent. It simpy would have been agreed that the understanding of whatever "given" means to the Lord is what it means though you nor I may exactly know what that is. 

 

 

However, the tendency to try to qualify the things of God through the lens of society makes even people who may understand generally the same way unable to express consenus because of the taint that is always associated with how the world influences our meanings.  

 

Kindest regards

[Buckeye]

I see now Sam.  The problem is that you are viewing things from the eyes of the world, society, adversary (take your pick), while I am viewing them from God's eyes.  If only you would listen to God as I do, we'd be in agreement.

 

Very kindest regards

[Buckeye]

Sorry but this is not how it works. You don't get the callings you desire or lack there of.  Equal opportunity? For what? That idea is totally foriegn in the scriptures with regards to the priesthood and women holding it. The only time this is even talked about is in the D&C with regards to all having the same chance to accept or reject the gospel. Nothing else is talking about have an equal opportunity. If I want to be a bishop and I desire it should I get that? No. And no were do we find that concept taught. We even learn that no man can take this honor unto himself but he that was given it.

 

And forced sameness is exactly what you are talking about. You just don't want to call it that. If women had the preisthood they would be just like a man in his roles. There would be no difference.

 

How about this proposal?  Women get the priesthood.  But we make a new rule that men cannot wear scarfs and women cannot eat chocolate on Thursdays.  That way we don't have the same roles. 

[Buzzard]

Not to throw a bomb here, especially since I just wandered into this thread, but look at the results around you. Most mainline protestant religions-Anglicans, Methodists, and so forth-do ordain women. In the LDS family tree, the COC does as well. And have for some time. Please find me one of these religions that is thriving and growing. The 7th Day Adventists ordain women in two regions of the US, but all their growth is in the 3rd world, where ordination is male-only. You could put forth a lot of excuses, but those are the results.

IMHO, for a lot of men, when the women show up, and with their natural competence, take over and start running it the way that women run things-which is different from the way men do-well, it's a stereotype, but I observe a lot of men who will just shrug and say: "You want to run the church? Meh, go ahead. I'm going to get some chips and watch football in the basement. See you later."

I've even seen this in the corporate world, but that's another story. 

So again, IMHO, us guys need the priesthood in ways that women don't in order to help keep on the straight and narrow.

[SamIam]

Are you saying that women's unique role in this life is the ability (for some of them) to get pregnant? (I'm not trying to be obtuse)

 

I am going to take a genuine stretch here and go out on a limb in hopes that my comments will not be construed to be other than exactly what I mean.  (I know I'm already starting to sound delusional)

 

A women’s unique role is so remarkably diverse and comprehensive that only the most ignorant of priesthood holders would ever make the observation that it is about babies and raising children and all that that entails. 

 

When we talk about natural talents with love, charity, virtue, nurturing, meekness, love unfeigned, gentle persuasion who do we think of as the models for these kind of behaviors - women. 

 

However, if you observe the characteristics that God mandates before he open the heavens that a man can exercise his authority in the priesthood you may note something very peculiar.

Please read:

 

D & C 121:40-46 

40 Hence many are called, but ^afew are chosen.

41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

43 ^aReproving betimes with ^bsharpness, when ^cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of ^dlove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of ^adeath.

45 Let thy ^abowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let ^bvirtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy ^cconfidence wax strong in the ^dpresence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the ^edews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant ^acompanion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of ^brighteousness and truth; and thy ^cdominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

 

Everything a man needs to learn before he can exercise the priesthood is not one of those things that generally as a group we would ever claim is associated with being a man.  Instead they are the common traits of righteous women.  If you wish to know why I need my wife it is in part because she has a great deal to do with being the example for the traits that I do not naturally possess.  I learn from her how to nurture as I watch her nurture my children.  I learn charity as I observe how her heart bleeds when others suffer in grievous ways. I learn virtue when I realize that how I looked at things in my youth naturally as a man is no where near the definition of virtuous thoughts and she models for me what I should be more like in uplifting thoughts and so it goes with almost every one of those traits. 

 

As a team we both have a role in the exercise of God's authority in my home.  I need someone to show me how to open the windows of heaven by her example so that God can make those traits mine.  Part of her role is to teach me those traits by her natural gifts that I have to take outside of the home as an administrator in God's kingdom. 

 

That's in part why this whole priesthood conversation is unfortunate to me.  It is not enough that people want to change the order of things, it's that they have no sense how beautiful is the order that God has established for us.  For every expectation that she is to look to me as the presiding priesthood authority in my home, I am equally as obligated to look to her to learn how to model the traits that will allow the heavens to open so that I can exercise this priesthood properly. It is an order of wonderful balance and delicate means.  It shouldn't be tampered with simply because neither gender is inclined to ignore the influences of the world and just do it God's way.

A righteous women is not only part of the education of her children but also of her husband and thus the priesthood could never be fully effective in the absence of righteous women. 

 

Now there is an entire other conversation we could have about what a woman is to learn from her husbanc but that is another conversation for another day.

Edited September 10, 2013 by SamIam

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That is one of them. It is not the only. Do you not think that a women having the ability to bear children unique, when compared to a man? I mean this really is simple. If not then explain. Because I would love a great explination for it.

A women's ability to carry a baby to term is indeed unique. Just as supplying the sperm is unique for men. In fact these are direct corollaries.  Only women can be Mom's only men can be Dad's. Comparing priesthood to motherhood is a category mistake. Motherhood is analogous to fatherhood.  

 

In the church their are many spiritual gifts.  The only gender exclusive gift in the church is the priesthood.  You and Stormrider both seem to think (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that if we take the priesthood and give it to women, men will become unnecessary. I'm just asking why women aren't unnecessary right now then.  You say it has to do with the ability to be pregnant.  That's fine (I think this is an error in logic as explained above, but let's grant the assumption for now). Does that mean all the women who adopt or are unmmarried or otherwise have no children are unnecessary in the church? (This seems to me to be the only conclusion possible).

 

You seem to imply there are other things that are unique to women. What are these things? Do men have nothing that is unique to them besides the priesthood? What are these things?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am going to take a genuine stretch here and go out on a limb in hopes that my comments will not be construed to be other than exactly what I mean.  (I know I'm already starting to sound delusional)

 

A women’s unique role is so remarkably diverse and comprehensive that only the most ignorant of priesthood holders would ever make the observation that it is about babies and raising children and all that that entails. 

 

When we talk about natural talents with love, charity, virtue, nurturing, meekness, love unfeigned, gentle persuasion who do we think of as the models for these kind of behaviors - women. 

 

I know plenty of women that exhibit these characteristics. I know plenty who don't.  I also can say that I know plenty of men that exhibit these characteristics in their very nature from birth.  My two eldest sons included.  Are you saying that these gifts are unique to women? When we talk about the perfect role model for this life don't we always refer to Christ who happened to be a male?

[SamIam]

A women's ability to carry a baby to term is indeed unique. Just as supplying the sperm is unique for men. In fact these are direct corollaries.  Only women can be Mom's only men can be Dad's. Comparing priesthood to motherhood is a category mistake. Motherhood is analogous to fatherhood.  

 

In the church their are many spiritual gifts.  The only gender exclusive gift in the church is the priesthood.  You and Stormrider both seem to think (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that if we take the priesthood and give it to women, men will become unnecessary. I'm just asking why women aren't unnecessary right now then.  You say it has to do with the ability to be pregnant.  That's fine (I think this is an error in logic as explained above, but let's grant the assumption for now). Does that mean all the women who adopt or are unmmarried or otherwise have no children are unnecessary in the church? (This seems to me to be the only conclusion possible).

 

You seem to imply there are other things that are unique to women. What are these things? Do men have nothing that is unique to them besides the priesthood? What are these things?

 

I think part of the issue here is that many continue to see men and women as seperate entities.  However, they are halves to a whole.  Most who have no idea of what it is to be truly unified after the manner that the Lord has established are always pushing for seperate identities and seperate treatments as if wholeness can be achieved as a man seperate from a woman.  Yet a whole woman is nothing in the eternities any more than a whole man is nothing as well.  However, a unified couple each fulfilling their roles is the very definition of eternal life.

 

 

 

I know plenty of women that exhibit these characteristics. I know plenty who don't.  I also can say that I know plenty of men that exhibit these characteristics in their very nature from birth.  My two eldest sons included.  Are you saying that these gifts are unique to women? When we talk about the perfect role model for this life don't we always refer to Christ who happened to be a male?

 

This is another challenge.  You have to at least read carefully what I am saying. I qualified the traits as those possessed by righteous women.  I'm sure you know plenty who don't but I was clearly excluding them from the general nature of my comments.  I suspect by the fact that you gave your wife no credit for their wondrous characteristics that she must have died in their youth and you raised them alone. And if that was true that they had none to example these traits as well - grandmothers, friends etc.

 

How many other men do you know that learn to become like Christ without the benefit of the influencing factors of women in their lives. There may be exceptions but please let's be agreed that we are not discussing exceptions.

 

What is most fascinating to me is that I make a commentary of the value of the contribution of women in the lives of men and then you claiming to be the staunch supporter of women’s rights, dreams, hopes and aspirations come behind and reinforce the ideology that men don't really need their mothers, or husbands their wives to be good people and undermine the very contributions that are the most important contributions that mothers make in the lives of their children. 

 

 

 

You seem to just want to be contrary without cause... other than of course my strident tone.

 

Frankly, my posts are long enough without those who intentionally fail to attempt to catch the spirit of my comments and would make me an offender for not covering every semantical nuance or possibility.  I stand by my post concerning D & C 121. The principles I outlined are profoundly true and correct and valuable to be understood by those who really wish to understand how men and women are never intended to be separate in any endeavor of this existence but our influences are continuously intertwined to build from each other until we can become whole. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by SamIam

[Buckeye]

Not to throw a bomb here, especially since I just wandered into this thread, but look at the results around you. Most mainline protestant religions-Anglicans, Methodists, and so forth-do ordain women. In the LDS family tree, the COC does as well. And have for some time. Please find me one of these religions that is thriving and growing. The 7th Day Adventists ordain women in two regions of the US, but all their growth is in the 3rd world, where ordination is male-only. You could put forth a lot of excuses, but those are the results.

IMHO, for a lot of men, when the women show up, and with their natural competence, take over and start running it the way that women run things-which is different from the way men do-well, it's a stereotype, but I observe a lot of men who will just shrug and say: "You want to run the church? Meh, go ahead. I'm going to get some chips and watch football in the basement. See you later."

I've even seen this in the corporate world, but that's another story. 

So again, IMHO, us guys need the priesthood in ways that women don't in order to help keep on the straight and narrow.

 

Buzzard, all religions in the developed world are experiencing a decline in participation.  Female ordination is not the cause.  And I'd prefer a church lead by women who actually want to perform priesthood service over one in which men are goated into something they dislike.  The reality is that most men in the church do not live up to their priesthood responsibilities.  That reality will not change much regardless of whether women are ordained.  But for those men who are living up to their responsibilities, I can't name a single one I know who would stop serving if his service were no longer gender-exclusive. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think part of the issue here is that many continue to see men and women as seperate entities.  However, they are halves to a whole.  Most who have no idea of what it is to be truly unified after the manner that the Lord has established are always pushing for seperate identities and seperate treatments as if wholeness can be achieved as a man seperate from a woman.  Yet a whole woman is nothing in the eternities any more than a whole man is nothing as well.  However, a unified couple each fulfilling their roles is the very definition of eternal life.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with my post. My post is in direct response to Storm Rider and Mola Ram assertion that men would be unnecessary if they women had the priesthood too. I am just trying to understand this from a logical standpoint. I have no where on this thread (or on this board to my knowledge advocated for giving women the priesthood. You have me curious though. If men and women are two halves of the same whole, how does that work for someone like Brigham Young who is sealed to 50+ women. In this case the woman is 2% to Brigham's 50%? Don't get me wrong. I think the imagary is beautiful, but I am not sure there is doctrinal support behind it.

 

This is another challenge.  You have to at least read carefully what I am saying. I qualified the traits as those possessed by righteous women.  I'm sure you know plenty who don't but I was clearly excluding them from the general nature of my comments.  I suspect by the fact that you gave your wife no credit for their wondrous characteristics that she must have died in their youth and you raised them alone. And if that was true that they had none to example these traits as well - grandmothers, friends etc.

Actually I was giving God the credit. I thought we were talking about "natural talents" (your words) not learned skill. Are you saying that anytime someone exhibits these types of things it is due to the influence of women only?

 

How many other men do you know that learn to become like Christ without the benefit of the influencing factors of women in their lives. There may be exceptions but please let's be agreed that we are not discussing exceptions.

I can only speak for myself. I can honestly say that I have seen these characteristics exhibited by both men and women in my life. My strongest impression when I think of pure love comes from an image seered in my memory of my Grandfather standing over my Grandmother as she struggled and eventually succumbed to a long illness. The thought that women have some type of corner on the love and charity or nurturing thing is completely foreign to my experience.

 

What is most fascinating to me is that I make a commentary of the value of the contribution of women in the lives of men and then you claiming to be the staunch supporter of women’s rights, dreams, hopes and aspirations come behind and reinforce the ideology that men don't really need their mothers, or husbands their wives to be good people and undermine the very contributions that are the most important contributions that mothers make in the lives of their children.

This is a formal CFR that I have done any such thing anywhere at anytime.

I view my wife as an equal partner in the raising of my family. I view my wife as a person. As a person she has unique strengths and unique weaknesses just like the rest of humanity. In many way our strengths and weaknesses compliment each other, but not in some sterotyped way. I am much better at doing laundry than she is. I have a much better attention to detail. She is much more of a visionary and a leader. I work, she stays home, but when it comes to raising our children and living in our household we each contribute in ways that play to our strengths and we support one another in our weaknesses.

[SamIam]

In response to your formal CFR

 

 

I know plenty of women that exhibit these characteristics. I know plenty who don't.  I also can say that I know plenty of men that exhibit these characteristics in their very nature from birth.  My two eldest sons included.  Are you saying that these gifts are unique to women? When we talk about the perfect role model for this life don't we always refer to Christ who happened to be a male?

 

My post was built around the principle expressed here:

 

"As a team we both have a role in the exercise of God's authority in my home.  I need someone to show me how to open the windows of heaven by her example so that God can make those traits mine.  Part of her role is to teach me those traits by her natural gifts that I have to take outside of the home as an administrator in God's kingdom. " and "A righteous women is not only part of the education of her children but also of her husband and thus the priesthood could never be fully effective in the absence of righteous women."

 

Your response above was made to disagree with the theme of my post about the efforts that women assist their husband and children in acquiring certain talents and characteristics and you stated in your disagreement by inference that the contributions that I outlined were not in your opinion the product of your wife teaching your sons anything of those traits because they possessed them from birth.  Not only that but you have known "many men" from their births as well and of these "many men" they were virtuous and kind and loving and it was not due to the influences of their mothers, or grandmothers or women in general because they had these traits from their birth.  When you used the term "from birth" you excluded that there was any influence that contributed to the development of those traits be it male or female in your boys or in the "many men" you have known based on the context of our discussion.   

Edited September 10, 2013 by SamIam

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Samlam,

 

You said that I claimed to be a staunch supporter of women's rights. I have never made this claim. I have my own opinions based on the world I see around me much as you have yours. 

 

Next you claimed that I reinforced "the ideology that men don't really need their mothers, or husbands their wives to be good people."  You support this by referencing my observation that some men are innately gifted with charity, love, and nurturing. Do you really deny this? You really believe that the only possible conceivable way that a man (as opposed to a woman) can learn to love is from his mother or the women in his life? Does the fact that both men and women helped me learn the value of nurturing mean that I don't value my mother or don't need my wife? Really?

[SamIam]

Samlam,

 

You really believe that the only possible conceivable way that a man (as opposed to a woman) can learn to love is from his mother or the women in his life? Does the fact that both men and women helped me learn the value of nurturing mean that I don't value my mother or don't need my wife? Really?

 

No I do not believe this.  The final sentence of my post references that this was only half of a conversation and that there was an entire side remaining.  However, the first sentence of my post was this one:

 

 

I am going to take a genuine stretch here and go out on a limb in hopes that my comments will not be construed to be other than exactly what I mean.  (I know I'm already starting to sound delusional)

 

What you have validated and continue to validate is that my concerns were legitimate as I knew they were, that the construers would jump all over my statements. You also continue to validate that I am delusional.  Please lets start fresh and accept my apologies for anything that you have found unreasonable in my observations. 

[Buzzard]

Buzzard, all religions in the developed world are experiencing a decline in participation.  Female ordination is not the cause.  And I'd prefer a church lead by women who actually want to perform priesthood service over one in which men are goated into something they dislike.  The reality is that most men in the church do not live up to their priesthood responsibilities.  That reality will not change much regardless of whether women are ordained.  But for those men who are living up to their responsibilities, I can't name a single one I know who would stop serving if his service were no longer gender-exclusive. 

You sure about that? BTW, while our church growth has slowed, we are not declining. I think it's safe to say that the most dynamic, growing churches in the world today, even non-Christian, do not allow the ordination of women, 

[DBMormon]

Buckeye - a qustion.  If revelation came tomorrow that said women can not and do not hold Priesthood.  But rather there is a power women hold  called XYZ

(i don't buy into the opposite of priesthood is motherhood or Womenhood as those opposites are father hood and manhood)

 

But there is a power that heavenly Mother Holds that sisters have naturally.  With that power while not priesthood allowed them to participate jointly in blessings and other gifts of the spirit (gifts of the spirit such as gift of healing ar enot gendered)

 

Would this satisfy this issue from your point of view?

Edited September 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

Not to throw a bomb here, especially since I just wandered into this thread, but look at the results around you. Most mainline protestant religions-Anglicans, Methodists, and so forth-do ordain women. In the LDS family tree, the COC does as well. And have for some time. Please find me one of these religions that is thriving and growing. The 7th Day Adventists ordain women in two regions of the US, but all their growth is in the 3rd world, where ordination is male-only. You could put forth a lot of excuses, but those are the results.

IMHO, for a lot of men, when the women show up, and with their natural competence, take over and start running it the way that women run things-which is different from the way men do-well, it's a stereotype, but I observe a lot of men who will just shrug and say: "You want to run the church? Meh, go ahead. I'm going to get some chips and watch football in the basement. See you later."

I've even seen this in the corporate world, but that's another story.

So again, IMHO, us guys need the priesthood in ways that women don't in order to help keep on the straight and narrow.

Both you and Buckeye have good points. Maybe the churches that have ordained women are just getting on their feet and it may take time. Just as it has with women getting the vote and so on.

[Bob Crockett]

Women can't hold the Priesthood. So says Joseph Smith in an inspired translation of 1 Cor 14:34.

[SamIam]

Women can't hold the Priesthood. So says Joseph Smith in an inspired translation of 1 Cor 14:34.

Thank you for that reference.  I was unfamiliar with it.

[Glenn101]

From what I have been reading, most of the men posting here on the board would be fine with a revelation allowing all worth females the opportunity to be ordained to the Priesthood. There have been quite a few possible reasons proffered as to wy it has not already been accomplished, all of which are pretty much as speculative as the reasons for the priesthood ban on the blacks up until 1978. I have no idea myself. I just want to do what the Lord wants me to do, and I need to make what He wants to be what I want. So I have to keep asking questions of the Lord, i.e., what does He want of me?

 

I have made all too many false starts, jumping the gun and doing things I thought were right, only to have the results to be less than desirable. I hvae learned to keep asking over and over again, and to keep waiting until I get a pretty clear answer. And thus far, it is working.

 

I think that this needs to be applied to the situation with women and the priesthood. All concerned realy do need to ask the questions. And if it is to be the Lord's will, he will instruct His leaders, much as he instructed Peter in the case of Cornelius, the Centurion. Peter's instructions came because of the prayers of Cornelius and his household, and through htis, the Gospel was opened to the Gentiles. Righteous prayers spurred by a desire for service will be answered, one way or another, but they will be answered, in the Lord's own due time.

 

Glenn

[SamIam]

From what I have been reading, most of the men posting here on the board would be fine with a revelation allowing all worth females the opportunity to be ordained to the Priesthood. There have been quite a few possible reasons proffered as to wy it has not already been accomplished, all of which are pretty much as speculative as the reasons for the priesthood ban on the blacks up until 1978. I have no idea myself. I just want to do what the Lord wants me to do, and I need to make what He wants to be what I want. So I have to keep asking questions of the Lord, i.e., what does He want of me?

 

I have made all too many false starts, jumping the gun and doing things I thought were right, only to have the results to be less than desirable. I hvae learned to keep asking over and over again, and to keep waiting until I get a pretty clear answer. And thus far, it is working.

 

I think that this needs to be applied to the situation with women and the priesthood. All concerned realy do need to ask the questions. And if it is to be the Lord's will, he will instruct His leaders, much as he instructed Peter in the case of Cornelius, the Centurion. Peter's instructions came because of the prayers of Cornelius and his household, and through htis, the Gospel was opened to the Gentiles. Righteous prayers spurred by a desire for service will be answered, one way or another, but they will be answered, in the Lord's own due time.

 

Glenn

 

For myself there is an additional issue here.  When you talk about asking and being inspired, the process for us in this day and age is to include a great deal of studying it out.  This process is not only about being informed about what the scriptures say but additionally it is about how the scriptures feel.  When one does more than just read the scriptures and then put them back on the shelf but genuinely study and cross reference and write documents of impressions given by the spirit and let your heart be filled with the spirit of understanding and wisdom then you have begun to not only know scriptures but to also know God. How he thinks and feels etc.  You also get to see the patterns of God. 

 

The single most condemning paradigm that is all to common within the members of the church is we do not understand the unity of God's kingdom.  We keep thinking men are men and women are women as separate entities.  We think the earth is the earth and giraffes are giraffes and we are all the individual genders, bodies, roles, and species we appear in our weakened mortal state. . Several years ago I memorized Moses 7. I was working the verses for months and as I did so I became in some small way Enoch. Pick it up at about verse 26.  That version of Enoch is just like most of us.  He is not thinking about the whole in the least.  Not only that he can't.  He can't see it, he can't feel it.  He wonders what in the heck the fuss is all about and why ALL OF CREATION is sobbing and crying and God himself rains his tears upon the mountains.

 

Enoch is completely lost in what this is all about.  However, if you carefully follow him from verse 26 to 27 to 32 and then from 32 to 38 he is being taught by God why all of creation is unified in the suffering of mankind's pending judgment.  Then verse 39 begins to work on him and then in 41 he is starting to catch a far bigger picture and a far greater understanding of how all of creation is joined together in the success and the failure of mankind for their own perpetuation. In forty one is one of the most powerful verses in all of scripture when it states that Enoch's  arms stretched wide as eternity, and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.  Why did they stretch? In begging and pleading with God to now save his brethren and to have mercy on man.  Then not only getting that picture he realize that the earth pleads as well for her children - mankind.  Children that she feels such sorrow at their loss and Enoch has now realized how intricately woven creation is and he suffers now as much as all who understand the unity of all creation can only suffer.  If you follow his growth and ask to feel it you can sense a powerful conversion of a singular kind.

 

There is no benefit to a woman to hold the priesthood. It is worthless to her as an individual part of a much greater whole. There is no benefit to a family to have two heads.  It is sufficient for the unified group to have one who holds the priesthood and one who is his helpmeet and those who will grow into their own family units.  Giving the sisters the priesthood will not buildup families.  It will not make them stronger or better functioning.  It will destroy them.  We have ever been all about our social engineering wisdom for 5 decades now.  The world has never declined at a faster rate and sunk to such levels as it has now in great part because we think we know better than God how to organize the family and his kingdom.

 

So to me it is more than waiting for another social engineering process to divide the saints.  Yet, there will be losses.  There have been losses. There will continue to be losses. All because we are so smart and will dictate to God how he should run things.  Take six months and read Moses 7 every day several times a day.  Let Enoch teach about what it means to see with an eye towards a unified concept that is God's Kingdom.  Some will claim this is my opinion.  Instead I can easily state that I have sought this testimony and if I come off sounding strident and unyielding in my thoughts, it is precisely because they are not my opinions but the things I know because I have asked the questions, and studied it out and have been blessed of the spirit to understand that duplication of individual roles only leads to confusion and condemns the unity that is the kingdom of God.         

Edited September 11, 2013 by SamIam

[SamIam]

But there is a power that heavenly Mother Holds that sisters have naturally.  With that power while not priesthood allowed them to participate jointly in blessings and other gifts of the spirit

 

You continue to try to separate individuals from a unit.  I will share a story.  I will not mention who this is or where it was but only the barest details necessary to convey the message.

 

There was a young single LDS woman who was catching the last run of a ferry across the river to return to her home.  She noticed while waiting that there were very few people, but she clearly noticed three men who were together.  She took the ferry as did they and it docked on the far side.  She began to head up the incline towards her destination realizing that after a few moments she was essentially alone....except for the three men.  They grabbed her and began carrying her off into the woods.  She tried to scream out, she kicked she yelled all to no avail.  After a brief period, I know not exactly how long...I'm not sure she knew how long but after a moment she felt a calm come over her and a voice spoke clearly in her mind what she was to do.  The voice stated "say these words" ... "By the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood that my father [and she named him] holds, I command that you set me down and depart.  They set her down and walked away as if they had forgotten that she was there.

 

The priesthood only needs to be held by a presiding worthy man in a family.  In a perfect existence it follows the sealing lines for access to those of the family unit.  I am in no way claiming that this is the way it would work for anyone else during this time of our mortal existence. I do not know.  However, when the sealings are ratified by the Holy Spirit of promise they are literal unions of all members so ratified in a family and the blessings of that union are shared with all as they are one.  The sealing cannot be ratified to just a man.  Nor to just a women.  It is required that at least two be ratified and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise as they become one.  When the children are ratified then they become one with their parents.  I hope this helps broaden just a hint of understanding and perhaps opens a door a bit wider to understand what the real purpose is behind priesthood.  It is not about exalting individuals, it is about creating unified families who are bound as one. 

 

Then these are bound to others in their line and there is a complete line of sealed families all the way back to Adam otherwise this is the reason that if it were not so He would come and smite the earth with a curse.  The curse would be that all would be scattered as individuals and without a sealing to Christ to become one with him none of us could be carried back to eternal life to dwell in the presence of God. It is precisely because of that sealing, binding tie that ultimately seals us to the only individual who has the right to dwell with God, having never broken his law, that we being one with him now are entitled as a unified unit of like beings to be part of his kingdom. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by SamIam

[Calm]

And I can tell you another story where my father informed two young ladies that if they were ever in trouble to put their arms to the square and in the name of Jesus Christ, demand that Satan depart....they had asked him (he was their SS teacher) what to do if someone ever attacked them and he responded without really thinking about it.  As it turned out, not long after that, they were attacked and they did exactly what was told them to do without any appeal to the Priesthood and the attackers ran off.
 
Perhaps it was their faith that the Lord would save them in both situations that mattered and not exactly what they did.
 

The priesthood only needs to be held by a presiding worthy man in a family.

 

That leaves a lot of families without the Priesthood, including in the Church.

 

My point if it was not clear, is that perhaps it is wiser not to try and teach doctrine based on personal anecdotes, but on revelation given to the Church as a whole.

Edited September 11, 2013 by calmoriah