Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[smac97]

That's a fair point.  I would argue "yes" because, however much the decision would affect men (and it would be huge), it would affect women more.  The complicating factor, though, is that the 15 primary decision makers for the church are all men.

But a simplifying factor is that the 15 primary decision makers for the Church are all prophets. They are human and make mistakes, and their decision-making processes are affected by a number of factors, of which gender is only one (the others being things like age, cultural milieu, education, life experiences, service in the church, influence from family and friends, political views, etc.). However, I blieve that that they are principally guided by the Spirit, not by their gender.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

If you come from a paradigm in which people sit patiently waiting for revelation to fall - like an apple from a tree - then yes, perhaps there is no parallel.  But if you come from a different paradigm in which God places people in positions where they must wrestle and learn for themselves what is good and evil and then approach God with their desires and ask if those desires are correct, well in that paradigm this newsarticle proves very telling.  The same wrestle that happened 100 years ago regarding voting is the one we are having now regarding ordination.  Looking back, it seems unfathamable that so many women would strongly oppose women's voting.  It's helpful to see that these women's concerns were no voting itself, but worries as to how voting would affect things they highly valued - christianity and the family.  That's helpful in coming to grasp with the question as to why so many LDS women today oppose a change that, on its surface, would give them additional blessings - such as the ability to participate in priesthood ordinances with their children.  Perhaps these women are also coming from an understandable position of fear of losing what they most hold dear.

But if you continue to approach God when we already know the answer, well, the blessing goes the way of the 116 pages.  God has already spoken when he told us who could hold the priesthood.  Now to say, "God, we have studied and prayed and feel like it would be better this way" is to ask God to change his mind.

And the ordain women movement are also basing their desires on the idea that who can hold the ecclesiastical priesthood is simply a matter of God's will, and not an issue of an eternal law, which even God cannot violate.

They can question all they want, but if they pester God for a revelation, well, he might just give it like he did to Joseph with the 116 pages.

[Buckeye]

But if you continue to approach God when we already know the answer, well, the blessing goes the way of the 116 pages.  God has already spoken when he told us who could hold the priesthood.  Now to say, "God, we have studied and prayed and feel like it would be better this way" is to ask God to change his mind.

And the ordain women movement are also basing their desires on the idea that who can hold the ecclesiastical priesthood is simply a matter of God's will, and not an issue of an eternal law, which even God cannot violate.

They can question all they want, but if they pester God for a revelation, well, he might just give it like he did to Joseph with the 116 pages.

 

When God limited the priesthood to Levites, he hadn't finished speaking.  When he limited it to Jews, he wasn't done.  When limits were placed on blacks, we eventually decided that God could keep speaking.  AOF 9 is still intact.  Why in the world do we think God is done speaking on this or any other issue?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But if you continue to approach God when we already know the answer, well, the blessing goes the way of the 116 pages.  God has already spoken when he told us who could hold the priesthood.  Now to say, "God, we have studied and prayed and feel like it would be better this way" is to ask God to change his mind.

And the ordain women movement are also basing their desires on the idea that who can hold the ecclesiastical priesthood is simply a matter of God's will, and not an issue of an eternal law, which even God cannot violate.

They can question all they want, but if they pester God for a revelation, well, he might just give it like he did to Joseph with the 116 pages.

So you are saying that when Spencer W Kimball spent hours, days, months, and years inquiring about the Priesthood ban for black Africans, and received an answer that contradicted prior understanding of God's will (past prophets had been quite clear on when the priesthood was to be given to those of african descent) he got the wrong answer?

[smac97]

If you come from a paradigm in which people sit patiently waiting for revelation to fall - like an apple from a tree - then yes, perhaps there is no parallel.

Well, let's be clear here. Nobody is suggesting that passivity is the only course of action. The point is that the present course of action - public agitation against the Church - is not appropriate.

An individual can petition the Church regarding a particular issue, but whether a revelation about that issue is pending, or whether to petition the Lord about it, is solely the province of the priesthood leaders of the Church. It is offensive to see church members use antagonistic pressure tactics to push their agenda on the Church's leadership. Margaret Blair-Young put it extremely well: “For all who seek change of any kind in the church, I urge patience and faith,” Young wrote. “Cling to the things you value and don’t forget them as you seek positive change. We are not the Church of the Infallible Prophet, nor the Church of Your Particular Issue, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are a community, still learning lessons in loving one another and providing support for each other in our various journeys.”

But if you come from a different paradigm in which God places people in positions where they must wrestle and learn for themselves what is good and evil and then approach God with their desires and ask if those desires are correct, well in that paradigm this newsarticle proves very telling.

I reject this characterization. As Latter-day Saints, we are all "in positions where they must wrestle and learn for themselves what is good and evil." We all try to "approach God with their desires and ask if those desires are correct."

We we are all not doing, however, is resorting to antagonistic publicity campaigns against the Church as a part of that process.

The same wrestle that happened 100 years ago regarding voting is the one we are having now regarding ordination.

That is not the same wrestle. The Church is not a political entity. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church is guided by revealed doctrine, not by the political preferences of the electorate.

The two situations are not comparable.

Looking back, it seems unfathamable that so many women would strongly oppose women's voting.

It is interesting, then, that LDS women of that era were strongly pro-suffrage, but they did not want the priesthood. That is the same situation in which we find ourselves today, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is interesting, then, that LDS women of that era were strongly pro-suffrage, but they did not want the priesthood. That is the same situation in which we find ourselves today, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is interesting too that LDS women of that era also did many things that we consider functions of the priesthood, including annointings, blessings by the laying on of hands, and that they had much more autonomy as an organization.

[Tacenda]

Great link. And very insightful. Women's ordination will harm families in the same manner that women's voting harmed families In other words, not at all. The result would be the exact opposite.

I agree pretty much. And do believe that it was important for women to be able to vote back when polygamy was an issue. That is why so many LDS men/women wanted the women to have the right to vote back then, imo.

Wasn't there a quote by BKP that said the enemies of the church were Gays, Feminists and Intellectuals? Seems to be playing out in probably a lot of people's minds.

[Buckeye]

Wasn't there a quote by BKP that said the enemies of the church were Gays, Feminists and Intellectuals? Seems to be playing out in probably a lot of people's minds.

 

Yes, but to my knowledge President Packer has not reiterated that counsel for some 20 years.  If he's content to let it be, I'm of a mind to agree.  Nibley famously said he wouldn't be responsible for anything he said more than 5 years earlier.  I certainly hope that others are charitable towards me and let things I've said die.

[JLHPROF]

So you are saying that when Spencer W Kimball spent hours, days, months, and years inquiring about the Priesthood ban for black Africans, and received an answer that contradicted prior understanding of God's will (past prophets had been quite clear on when the priesthood was to be given to those of african descent) he got the wrong answer?

No I am saying 2 things:

1. When God has already spoken, we should follow his words and quit bugging him until we get the answer we like.

2. God himself cannot and will not change something that follows an eternal law.  Within the gospel there are things that are administrative doctrines that change for the circumstances and things that are eternal doctrines that cannot change.  Priesthood roles (for men and women) and gender are eternal in nature - they predate this mortality and will exist after.

[Bikeemikey]

But if you continue to approach God when we already know the answer, well, the blessing goes the way of the 116 pages. God has already spoken when he told us who could hold the priesthood. Now to say, "God, we have studied and prayed and feel like it would be better this way" is to ask God to change his mind.

And the ordain women movement are also basing their desires on the idea that who can hold the ecclesiastical priesthood is simply a matter of God's will, and not an issue of an eternal law, which even God cannot violate.

They can question all they want, but if they pester God for a revelation, well, he might just give it like he did to Joseph with the 116 pages.

This kind of thinking allows you to have your cake and eat it to.

It allows for you to accept that women may get the priesthood by prophetic directive but that such a directive is not really gods will.

That's a pretty dangerous line to walk.

If the prophet says priesthood for all that would clearly show it is gods will for women to have it.

[Garden Girl]

If you come from a paradigm in which people sit patiently waiting for revelation to fall - like an apple from a tree - then yes, perhaps there is no parallel.  But if you come from a different paradigm in which God places people in positions where they must wrestle and learn for themselves what is good and evil and then approach God with their desires and ask if those desires are correct, well in that paradigm this newsarticle proves very telling. 

 

 

What makes you think that the brethren are not... and have not been... praying for guidance and revelation in regard to this matter that they understand is of great import and interest to women of the Church??

I somehow cannot conceive that the brethren aren't anxiously engaged...  and certainly cannot  see them as sitting like bumps waiting for an apple to fall and hit them on the head.  And as far as God placing people in positions where they must wrestle and learn his will through revelation... He's done that... It's called the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve for the administration of His Church.

 

GG

[Buckeye]

No I am saying 2 things:

1. When God has already spoken, we should follow his words and quit bugging him until we get the answer we like.

2. God himself cannot and will not change something that follows an eternal law.  Within the gospel there are things that are administrative doctrines that change for the circumstances and things that are eternal doctrines that cannot change.  Priesthood roles (for men and women) and gender are eternal in nature - they predate this mortality and will exist after.

 

Have you read the 1949 First President Statement regarding the racial priesthood ban?  You can find it here:  http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/.  President Smith and his counselors were conviced the ban was from God, was "doctrine" (their word) and would not end until all non-cursed males had an opportunity to accept the gospel.  For them, it was something that could not change. 

 

So why less than 30 years later did another prophet open his heart to the possibility that the ban could change, read the Lester Bush Dialogue article to learn history he, the prophet, did not know, and then petition the Lord to change the policy, though with the determination to continue it if the Lord said so?  The revelation did not come because President Kimball said "whatever you want to have happen Lord."  It came when he said "I think this should change, but I'll do what you want." 

 

There is nothing in scripture or current teachings to suggest the gender priesthood ban is "eternal."  Heck, it's not even doctrine.  When OW began last April, the church issued spokesman refered to the restriction as a "policy" - the same word used to describe the racial priesthood ban and polygamy.  Policies can change.

[Buckeye]

What makes you think that the brethren are not... and have not been... praying for guidance and revelation in regard to this matter that they understand is of great import and interest to women of the Church??

I somehow cannot conceive that the brethren aren't anxiously engaged...  and certainly cannot  see them as sitting like bumps waiting for an apple to fall and hit them on the head.  And as far as God placing people in positions where they must wrestle and learn his will through revelation... He's done that... It's called the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve for the administration of His Church.

 

GG

 

Because they have not said that.  The closest thing we have is President Hinckley's statement to Mike Wallace in 1995 - almost 20 years ago - where he said something like "the Lord doesn't want it."  The brethren have never come forward and told the body that the way things are are the Lord's will.  Why not?  We can only speculate.  My best guess is that there is not uniform agreement among the 15 and so they won't speak until there is.  They continue to wrestle themselves.  I pray for them in that wrestle.  But I don't assume they have a received a revelation until they actually present one.

[JLHPROF]

This debate is probably a moot point anyway.  Ordain Women is unlikely to effect any actual change within the Church any time soon.

Maybe 50 years from now, but even then I doubt it.

Dialogue posted a link to an interesting article on some of the reasons why this is unlikely to happen.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2013/09/why-lds-women-will-not-be-ordained-to-the-priesthood/

[canard78]

The fact that it will be broadcast live raises an interesting question.

 

Is it appropriate for women to watch the priesthood broadcast? I've often sat in chapels where a few sisters were with their husbands during the PH session. Should they have been invited to leave? If the chapel had been full and some brothers arrived to a full chapel, should the sisters then have been asked to leave?

 

If I watch the session and my wife sits down next to me in the living room to watch with me, should I ask her to leave?

 

If all of the above is "no" - why is the conference centre a special exception?

[Buckeye]

The fact that it will be broadcast live raises an interesting question.

 

Is it appropriate for women to watch the priesthood broadcast? I've often sat in chapels where a few sisters were with their husbands during the PH session. Should they have been invited to leave? If the chapel had been full and some brothers arrived to a full chapel, should the sisters then have been asked to leave?

 

If I watch the session and my wife sits down next to me in the living room to watch with me, should I ask her to leave?

 

If all of the above is "no" - why is the conference centre a special exception?

 

In the DN article, the church spokesperson is quoted as specifically inviting the women of OW to watch the PH session online.  So I would say "yes."

[Senator]

  Priesthood roles (for men and women) ... are eternal in nature - they predate this mortality and will exist after.

 

CFR

[CV75]

Why in the world do we think God is done speaking on this or any other issue?

This is why it is better to see what He is saying about the issues He is actually saying something about.

 

 

So you are saying that when Spencer W Kimball spent hours, days, months, and years inquiring about the Priesthood ban for black Africans, and received an answer that contradicted prior understanding of God's will (past prophets had been quite clear on when the priesthood was to be given to those of african descent) he got the wrong answer?

It is better not to cajole those we sustain to force them to work harder--that is kind of abusive in my opinion. If the prophets were sustained better, I suppose there might be more revelation--if President Kimball was better sustained, I doubt he would have had to work so hard in the first place. If we truly sustain them, why put all the pressure on their shoulders by being less worthy and Christlike than we can be?

[CV75]

If all of the above is "no" - why is the conference centre a special exception?

Probably limited seating for the primary target audience--the "live" experieince is nothing to sneeze at, even though it's also online--which otherwise would be cut in half.

[JLHPROF]

CFR

New here - does this mean you want a reference?

[Buckeye]

Probably limited seating for the primary target audience--the "live" experieince is nothing to sneeze at, even though it's also online--which otherwise would be cut in half.

 

There are limited tickets, but not limited seating.  PH does not fill to capacity.  Everyone in the stand-by line gets in.  Whatever reasons may exist for excluding the OW crowd from the session, lack of seating is not it.

[Buckeye]

New here - does this mean you want a reference?

 

It means "Call for reference."  In practice, sometimes it gets thrown around as just a way to stop an argument.  But it actually serves a legitimate purpose for times - such as this -when someone makes a factual statement.  I try to assume the best whenever someone issues me a CFR.

[Senator]

New here - does this mean you want a reference?

Yes

[canard78]

In the DN article, the church spokesperson is quoted as specifically inviting the women of OW to watch the PH session online.  So I would say "yes."

 

Indeed, in which case, the church has no grounds on which to deny sisters entry into the session itself beyond the question of capacity. I wonder whether the PH session has been broadcast live in the hope of offering an olive branch to the agitators.

[Buckeye]

Indeed, in which case, the church has no grounds on which to deny sisters entry into the session itself beyond the question of capacity. I wonder whether the PH session has been broadcast live in the hope of offering an olive branch to the agitators.

 

Well, there is always some ground.  We can speculate, but the only way we'll know is if OW persists in seeking admittance and the church feels a need to give a better answer than "there is no room at the Inn."  Grounds could include "these women will create a distraction" or "if we open it to them then many other women will want to attend next time" or something else.  Not necessarily good grounds, but grounds nonetheless.