Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[JLHPROF]

CFR

 Priesthood roles (for men and women) ... are eternal in nature - they predate this mortality and will exist after.  Just a couple of references but there are more I don't have time to track down right now.

 

1. Thou wilt be permitted to pass by the Gods and angels who guard the gates, and onward, upward to thy exaltation in a celestial world among the Gods.  To be a priestess queen upon thy Heavenly Father’s throne, and a glory to thy husband and offspring, to bear the souls of men, to people other worlds while eternity goes and eternity comes; - John Taylor

(Priestess - a specific priesthood office for women that continues into eternity)

 

2. He was ordained a King and Priest to all eternity. After that, we two wives were anointed in like manner, and ordained Queens and Priestesses, to reign and rule with our husbands over his kingdom in the celestial world. - Fanny Stenhouse Tell It All

(Specific priesthood offices for men and women in the eternities)

 

3. The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed.  ALSO

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity,and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years.  TPJS Pg 47

(Priesthood office given before the world was formed and exists eternally)

 

In my opinion, God can no more make a woman a priest or King than he can make a man a priestess or Queen.  And just as there are specific functions in the gospel for deacons, elders, high priests etc, there are specific functions for priestesses.  Women CAN hold the priesthood, but there are specific offices and places for them to do so, just as for men.  Wanting offices that belong to others shows a lack of understanding.

[CV75]

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.

That's also what I mean. If you double the audience (admitting anyone and everyone, whether by ticket or standby), seating for the primary target audience would very much become an issue.

[WmLaw]

GBH 1997 interview:

"DR: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

DR: They all say that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife. "

------------------------

One could interpret GBH's response as meaning the issue will not come to a head, unless there is substantial 'agitation' from members. I don't see the current movement as a bad thing. What harm is coming from it?

[changed]

It will be interesting to see if they allow women in, as it was interesting when they allowed Jean A. Stevens to saw a prayer.  Part of me wants to join the movement (they seem a peaceful prayerful group for the most part), although part of me does not want to join our of reverence for the hidden mysteries of godliness and due to my personal beliefs reguarding the devine feminine. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by changed

[The Nehor]

Wouldn't it make more sense to agitate the person who could actually make the change? You know, pray.

[Buckeye]

That's also what I mean. If you double the audience (admitting anyone and everyone, whether by ticket or standby), seating for the primary target audience would very much become an issue.

 

What a great problem to have!  If anything, the change to online broadcast will mean that even fewer men/boys attend live. 

 

But let's assume that a scenario exists were (i) the church allows women to attend and (ii) there is not enough room for all men/boys/women/girls to do so.  In that case, I'd be fine saying, "women and girls can only stand-by and will be admitted after all the men/boys. Those who are not admitted for lack of seats will find overflow seating in the tabernacle and assemby hall."  The conference center holds 21,700.  The tabernacle holds 7,000.  That is much more than enough to accomodate any women who want to attend live. 

[omni]

To those that are unhappy at the way the OW group is asking for change, do you think if they went through the proper priesthood channels they would get anywhere? Don't you think they've already tried this? Look at our past, pressure both internally and externally is often how major changes in the church come about.

Polygamy was ended after a heavy crackdown by the Feds and we wanted statehood. Blacks received the priesthood not too long (we were still a little slow on this one) after the civil rights period, the church has softened its stance on gays coinciding with the gay rights movement, women were allowed to pray in GC after the online protest, and now we have the first live broadcast of the priesthood session coinciding with this protest. Unless of course you want to believe God just coincidentally changed his mind all those times.

[Duncan]

To those that are unhappy at the way the OW group is asking for change, do you think if they went through the proper priesthood channels they would get anywhere? Don't you think they've already tried this? Look at our past, pressure both internally and externally is often how major changes in the church come about.

Polygamy was ended after a heavy crackdown by the Feds and we wanted statehood. Blacks received the priesthood not too long (we were still a little slow on this one) after the civil rights period, the church has softened its stance on gays coinciding with the gay rights movement, women were allowed to pray in GC after the online protest, and now we have the first live broadcast of the priesthood session coinciding with this protest. Unless of course you want to believe God just coincidentally changed his mind all those times.

 

 

you have it figured out so, if I want Root beer in my sacrament cup every sunday who do  I speak to?I want A&W and not the cheapie Barqs stuff-it tastes like melted lipstick

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy was ended after a heavy crackdown by the Feds and we wanted statehood.

Not to go far off topic but this always makes me think of:

"I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing."  D&C 58:32

 

Whenever God revokes something I think we should always be worried, and perhaps hitting a little bit closer to this thread topic:

 

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord."

D&C 56:4

[smac97]

Indeed, in which case, the church has no grounds on which to deny sisters entry into the session itself beyond the question of capacity.

Except, of course, for the grounds the Church has cited, which grounds are curiously being ignored in this thread.

Men are not generally invited to attend the Women's Session of General Conference, either. It's not a question of seating capacity. It is a question of the intended audience.

It may also be a question of propriety. Since the OW folks are "agitating," their requested attendance at the meeting is not made in good faith. They do not want to attend the meeting to hear the contents of it, but to create an adversarial situation and to make the Church look bad.

I wonder whether the PH session has been broadcast live in the hope of offering an olive branch to the agitators.

Possibly. Too bad that olive leaf is being spurned by the intended recipients.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Buckeye]

you have it figured out so, if I want Root beer in my sacrament cup every sunday who do  I speak to?I want A&W and not the cheapie Barqs stuff-it tastes like melted lipstick

 

Sorry, you can't have A&W or Barqs.  But you can have rootbeer of your own make.  That way it's not poisonous. 

[CV75]

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife. "

------------------------

One could interpret GBH's response as meaning the issue will not come to a head, unless there is substantial 'agitation' from members. I don't see the current movement as a bad thing. What harm is coming from it?

I doubt that President Hinckley was linking popular agitation as a condition of seeking and receiving a revelation. Now if it were his own internal agitation, as inspired by the Spirit, there would be a connection.

 

And this was in 1997, so he may have believed the issue was not coming to a head within his lifetime. The studies quoted (somewhere in this or anotehr thread) show that the percentage of women wanting ordination is still pretty low. As far as OW becoming a significant movement, time will tell.

[why me]

The women are looking for publicity and hope to sow division in the lds church. Besides the name OrdainWomen is misleading. Boys receive the priesthood in the lds church. So, the name of the organization should be OrdainGirls. Unless of course these women wish to exclude girls from holding the priesthood.

 

As I have stated before the way the lds church is set up, by ordaining girls, the whole church would need to change direction and have a major shakeup in organization. Gone would be young mens and young womens organization. Gone would be relief society. Such an organization would make no sense if both girls and boys received the priesthood. And priesthood meetings would be radically different and would need at least the chapel to hold the meeting because of the numbers involved.

 

The ordainwomen people know this very well.

Edited September 25, 2013 by why me

[omni]

you have it figured out so, if I want Root beer in my sacrament cup every sunday who do I speak to?I want A&W and not the cheapie Barqs stuff-it tastes like melted lipstick

Hey, I thought root beer was an American drink. On my mission the locals always told me it tasted like cough syrup. Anyways, considering we once used wine, I'm sure you can get away with root beer.

[why me]

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.

Probably not. It is most likely broadcast live to accommodate the priesthood holders world wide. I believe that the OrdainGirls movement just wishes to cause trouble. Like I said, they chose the name OrdainWomen because the idea of ordaining girls would not get any traction. This organization is an actual spinoff of catholic women who wish to have catholic women become priests.

 

http://www.womensordination.org/

 

This is where they take their cue from. Thus, it is not about girls and in fact, no mentioning of ordaining girls is on the agenda.

 

But here is an interesting video from the catholic women's organization:

 

Edited September 25, 2013 by why me

[CV75]

What a great problem to have!  If anything, the change to online broadcast will mean that even fewer men/boys attend live. 

 

But let's assume that a scenario exists were (i) the church allows women to attend and (ii) there is not enough room for all men/boys/women/girls to do so.  In that case, I'd be fine saying, "women and girls can only stand-by and will be admitted after all the men/boys. Those who are not admitted for lack of seats will find overflow seating in the tabernacle and assemby hall."  The conference center holds 21,700.  The tabernacle holds 7,000.  That is much more than enough to accomodate any women who want to attend live. 

Yes, depending on the cause… I’m not even going to drive to the chapel; my wife and I will watch it together at home. In any case, only the distracted make it “all about them” and detract from the priesthood purpose.

 

I don’t agree with “women and girls can only stand-by and will be admitted after all the men/boys. Those who are not admitted for lack of seats will find overflow seating in the tabernacle and assembly hall." They are not second-class citizens. They don't have to be squeezed in somewhere. Have enough regard to either invite them or not – and if not, no offense; the messages and instruction are not intended for their immediate consumption or to meet an alternative agenda.

 

So I say, either keep the limited use of Church real property focused on the primary target audience or open it up for everybody. Otherwise, it’s like, “I pay my tithe, I want 5 minutes to see what it’s like to sit behind the Prophet’s desk.”

 

What would happen if the same thing were done at the Women’s and Young Women’s Conferences so that men could get in touch with their feminine side. Or if we went to whatever Sunday School or third hour class we wanted to because we think we’re special or relate to another group better. Or show up at a Primary Activity Day to get in touch with our inner child.

 

Another thing to remember is, those presiding over the meeting can receive unscripted inspiration especially suited to meet the needs of the audience. So the more general it is, the more general the inspiration becomes, and this is a priesthood session.

[LordUther]

you have it figured out so, if I want Root beer in my sacrament cup every sunday who do I speak to?I want A&W and not the cheapie Barqs stuff-it tastes like melted lipstick

Now you see this just begs the question of how you know what melted lipstick tastes like...

[Damien the Leper]

This again!?! Boring...

[changed]

(New Testament | Mark 9:35)
 If any desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

 

(New Testament | Luke 14:8 - 11)
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the alowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up bhigher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


When we think of polygamy, or the priesthood ban - does the church state that it was in error? or that at the time it was right?  When we read the scriptures and see that for a time the Jewish people were "chosen" and everyone else denied the priesthood - was it wrong to segrate the gentiles? It seems different groups come into favor during different time periods - I think it is good to learn the life of a servant - to see the glory of not being in leadership roles... the best leaders are the ones who don't seek after the position - but are asked to it.

 

[Duncan]

Now you see this just begs the question of how you know what melted lipstick tastes like...

 

 

some things are better left unsaid!!! hahaha!

[Bernard Gui]

Smac,

 

On my mission I taught primarily mexicans.  I learned to love the people and the culture.  In many ways I still identify with them today.  But at the same time, in a very real sense, I will never be mexican.  Likewise, many men love and want the best for women.  Men's voices are important.  But men are not women.  In some ways, they will never fully understand women's issues.  So while men's voices should be part of the discussion, the most important voices for women's issues are the voices of women. 

 

Interesting. Women are not men. Since having the Priesthood is a man's issue, women should have no voice in the matter.

[Bernard Gui]

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. 

 

 

Correction. The primary decision maker for the church is Jesus Christ. 

[LordUther]

some things are better left unsaid!!! hahaha!

Now that's just got my curiosity bubbling over! :-D

[Calm]

The strongest opposition to women's issues have always come from other women.  During the next few weeks, it would not be surprising for the issue of women's ordination to come up in conversations in local congregations.  If it happens in your ward, pay attention to who speaks up.  In my experience, 99% of the time it is a woman.  Men tend to sit out those discussions. 

 

And, for the record, while I think men should be involved in this discussion, I think the majority of speaking should be done by women.  I'm glad the DN article and the church newsroom have relied on primarily female voices for their articles/statements.  That alone is a great improvement over previous generations.  I'm grateful for women in previous generations who spoke up and changed our culture so that it became acceptable for women to be publicly heard.  We largely take that for granted now.  Hopefully future generations will reap the fruit of our current generation's women.

It will need women being the primary speakers in the conversation to steer it away from the distractions into the areas that are actually of import to most female members....which there are some, they just aren't talked about much in public for fear that they will be labeled as one of the agitators....a great disservice imo done their fellow sisters, though it may be balanced out by a public recognition that a conversation needs to take place....just not the one OW is trying to dictate.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I'm not certain it's true that seating is unlimited.  I attend the priesthood session live in the Conference Center each time. While I don't make a practice of gazing around to see if the arena is filled, I do know that invariably there are scores of men holding up signs as the congregation is flocking to the center, asking if anyone has spare tickets.

 

I don't think they would be doing that if everyone who showed up for the stand-by line could invariably expect to get a seat.

 

Moreover, not every seat in the Conference Center is created equal, as I observed recently from a region conference, when our family arrived late and were obliged to take seats up on the perimeter of the balcony. Th point being that it is not fair that choice seats be occupied by persons for whom the meeting is not specifically designed.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd