Foundational Doctrine Must Change For Women To Be Ordained

[Billy the Law]

Sorry, but you have no clue what motherhood is.  Eve was named "the mother of all living" long before she had any children.  There are some women who have children, who are NOT mothers, and other women who do not have children who are.  Being a mother is about how you treat others, it has nothing to do with being married, or getting pregnant.

 

 

Motherhood is innate in every woman wether she is married or single, sterile or fertile. It is through woman that planets are filled with a Heavenly Father's children. It is through woman that intelligence is brought forth as spirits. Elder Ballard taught that it is through a mothers love we are able to recognise the loving touch of our Heavenly Father. Being a mother is so much more than being on a labour table and spitting out offspring some of the mothers I've known with the biggest hearts have never given birth. Motherhood is innate in every woman regardless of her marital situation!

ETA: And it would be more accurate to say that without motherhood there is no plan of salvation, for without motherhood those spirit children could not be born!

Being born into the world with a certain attributes that would enable a women to be a great mother is not the same as motherhood. That's like saying, "men are born with attributes that enable then to magnify the priesthood, and even if a man does not receive the priesthood, the priesthood is innate within them." I don't agree with you. By your definitions of motherhood, a woman could elect to not have children and still magnify her motherhood. I think your definitions are not in line with the plan of salvation. 

 

As a side note, if you want to attack my argument that is fine, but stop trying to attack me personally. When you start a rebuttal with "you have no clue what motherhood is," you aren't inviting anyone to have a respectful discussion with you. 

[Cobalt-70]

Alma 13 will be altered or ignored:

... [ED]

 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

...[ED]

I understand this to mean the high priesthood (Melchizedek) is given to those men who were foreordained to their callings, follows the pattern of the order of the Son of God.

I think you are misreading Alma 13. This passage indicates that these Melchizedek priests were foreordained, rather than ordained during their lifetimes. These priests were born with their priesthood calling, and grew into their predestined priesthood through their great faith rather than by ordination by another man, like Jesus and the mythical Melchizedek.

 

The reason why this priesthood follows the "order of the Son of God" is not because priesthood holders, like Jesus, must have male genitals. That's an absurd conclusion to draw from Alma 13. Rather, priesthood follows the order of the Son because, like the Son, their priesthood is foreordained, rather than received from another person.

 

(And don't bother pointing out that this doctrine of Alma 13 does not reflect post-1831 Mormon practice of ordaining Melchizedek priests by the laying on of hands. I chalk that up to doctrinal change through continuing revelation.)

[David Crenshaw]

Being born into the world with a certain attributes that would enable a women to be a great mother is not the same as motherhood. That's like saying, "men are born with attributes that enable then to magnify the priesthood, and even if a man does not receive the priesthood, the priesthood is innate within them." I don't agree with you. By your definitions of motherhood, a woman could elect to not have children and still magnify her motherhood. I think your definitions are not in line with the plan of salvation. 

 

As a side note, if you want to attack my argument that is fine, but stop trying to attack me personally. When you start a rebuttal with "you have no clue what motherhood is," you aren't inviting anyone to have a respectful discussion with you. 

I agree with you completely. The rules for "motherhood" very much correlate with the "rules" for the priesthood. Neither calling should be taken lightly. It seems though that this is obviously a sensitive issue that should be dealt with in a respectful way.  It's disappointing when others feel the need to make personal attacks when they don't agree with your views. I've just learned of a website which I believe is launching tomorrow. It's called The World Table It allows you to rate each user based on respectfulness, honesty, fairness, knowledge, etc. Each person also agrees to live by these ideals when they join. So accountability for your words is a huge part, as the anonymity has been removed. I'd like to see more of these conversations move to places like The World Table. http://theworldtable.org

[Cobalt-70]

You see to me it very clearly says that. Women don't hold the priesthood, it's the way the Lord wants it. Men have their place & women have theirs. I am getting ready for work soon, but will search for some more quotes later. 

 

Back in the days of slavery, they used to say that black and white people had separate but equal roles. The role of the slave is just important in God's plan as the role of the master. The roles were equal in their separate spheres. And besides, you don't see slaves complaining, do you?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Sleeper Cell]

That would be awesome. I would love a revelation regarding HM. But I rather doubt one will come so long as we are only speaking about Her, rather than speaking to Her. I'm not advocating for prayer to Her, but I really can't see how we can ever know Her without talking to Her. Could we know the Father without speaking to Him?

 

 

Again, I'm not advocating it.  But it's a delimma I can't resolve.  We can learn a lot about someone from others.  But we can never know that person without interacting with them.  The church teaches us to pray only to Father.  But as more and more women express a desire to know Mother (including especially many women who do not desire ordination), I believe we will eventually have to face this delimma head on.

 

 

By that reasoning, if we only pray to the Father, we can never know Jesus

[LordUther]

Being born into the world with a certain attributes that would enable a women to be a great mother is not the same as motherhood. That's like saying, "men are born with attributes that enable then to magnify the priesthood, and even if a man does not receive the priesthood, the priesthood is innate within them." I don't agree with you. By your definitions of motherhood, a woman could elect to not have children and still magnify her motherhood. I think your definitions are not in line with the plan of salvation.

As a side note, if you want to attack my argument that is fine, but stop trying to attack me personally. When you start a rebuttal with "you have no clue what motherhood is," you aren't inviting anyone to have a respectful discussion with you.

It's as much about having a womb and having the ability to create and nurture life within her that makes her a co-creator with God, a gift a man can never have. And you are wrong a woman who chooses not to have children fails to magnify her calling as much as a priesthood holder who lives a life that is unworthy of the priesthood he holds. A woman who because of a consequence of the fall who is biologically unable to have children but who still allows her mothering instinct to flourish is under no such condemnation. Women are privileged to be creators of life, men to be holders of the priesthood.

[LordUther]

Back in the days of slavery, they used to say that black and white people had separate but equal roles. The role of the slave is just important in God's plan as the role of the master. The roles were equal in their separate spheres. And besides, you don't see slaves complaining, do you?

CFR

[Sleeper Cell]

Steadying the Ark - "A negative term that a disgruntled person says to someone who has an opinion different then yourself, and you disagree strongly with their stance"

 

All revelation comes from questions.  Not just questions Prophets ask God, but Questions people ask Prophets, or people ask God to impart knowledge to prophets.  Almost every change in this Church in terms of programs started with a Bottom up method.  A ward starts something in place A.  People in place B, C, D see it works so well they implement it.  Sooner or later top leadership become aware and test it in various areas and then if it works well, it is adopted Church wide. (does not apply to PH to women but simply showing revelation can also work bottom up)

 

So unless someone here outwardly demands change rather then simply discussing it, Ark-Steadier is an inappropriate term that says more about the user then the one being called names.

 

I tend to agree.

 

I must confess that in a hidden part of my soul (where I compartmentalize my less than orthodox thoughts), I have always felt a certain sympathy for the OT “ark steadier” whose spontaneous action gave rise to this term. IIRC, the poor guy reacted without thinking and had no intent to change the direction the ark was being carried, but merely tried to help keep the ark on the course intended by the authorized priesthood holders. I would like to think that he would not have done what he did, had he had time to think it through.

 

I am far more concerned with an “ark steadier” who has had time to think it through, but is deliberately trying to divert the ark from the direction the priesthood is carrying it, than with those well meaning people who support the direction the authorized servants are taking, but are just trying to help them.

 

 

BTW, I also think that “doubting Thomas“ is getting a raw deal.

[DBMormon]

 

OK, so you think my use of the term "ark steadier" is pejorative.  You're welcome to believe that, but I also think there's a sort of pot-and-kettle thing going on here.  I'm not disgruntled.  I'm not among those agitating for change.  I think the Lord is able to do His Own Work.  You're welcome to think me naïve for so believing, and I'm sure you'd be in good company.  Have at it!   As grateful as I am to be an instrument in God's hands in accomplishing His work to whatever limited extent it's possible for me to do so (not because of anything I might do for Him, but rather because of everything He does for me) I don't think he needs any of my help deciding what to do in spheres that are outside my stewardship: I think He's got that covered.

 

 

No, it doesn't.   Much revelation might.  Most revelation might.  Even the vast majority might.  But to say that all revelation does circumscribes God's alleged omnipotence and omniscience.  In many cases, perhaps the Lord is waiting until we're ready to reveal certain things, but I don't think He's doomed to a perpetual state of frustration, twiddling His thumbs and checking His watch, waiting for us recalcitrant mortals finally to get around to asking Him a question or otherwise to demonstrate that we're ready for what He wants to tell us.  In many cases (plural marriage, united order, blacks and the Priesthood [see Elder Bruce R. McConkie], etc.) the revelation comes whether we're ready for it or not.  It's our job to acclimate ourselves to the new state of affairs when revelation comes (again, see Elder Bruce R. McConkie); it's not the Lord's job (at least, not always) to wait until we're "ready" for it.

 

 

I'd have to know exactly what you're referring to when you speak of programs.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, rather than people saying, "This has worked well here!  Someone should call Salt Lake!" and the Brethren saying, "That's a good idea: we should implement it Church-wide!"  the opposite happens: when the Brethren find out about the innovation, it (according to critics) people grumble when their pet innovative program is sacrificed on the altar of correlation.

 

 

 

Neener-neener-neener!    "I know you are, but what am I?!"   (What're ya gonna do about it?! )

 

I just know when it is thrown around it is usually done by those who have self appointed themselves as Church police and the term is used way more then it actually applies.  This is a discussion board and Buckeye simply discussed how he sees such a possible change as positive.  He has not demanded it and he has not claimed revelation for the Church.  If I did a search for ARKSTEADIER on this board and tracked the times it has been used.  I would bet Don Bradley, Brant Gardner, Mike Ash, Kevin Christiansen and others like them have rarely if never used it.  There is something to be said about those who choose not to use that term and those who use it when it doesn't likely apply.  Good Day

[Kenngo1969]

...  If I did a search for ARKSTEADIER on this board and tracked the times it has been used.  I would bet Don Bradley, Brant Gardner, Mike Ash, Kevin Christiansen and others like them have rarely if never used it.  There is something to be said about those who choose not to use that term and those who use it when it doesn't likely apply.  Good Day

Sigh!  Alas, if only you could confine your dealings on the Board to the Brethren Bradley, Gardner, Ash, Christensen [i believe it's "e" and not "ia"] and others, rather than having to deal with "The Great Unwashed" such as Li'l Ol' Me, life would be all sweetness and light ...   Oh.  Wait.  You can do that!  Theoretically, you could put 90% (plus) of the Board's participants on "Ignore" ... or, since that would be quite an undertaking, given the Board's 10,000 users, you could simply refuse to pay any attention to us.

 

Have at it!   (You'll be in excellent company!  Most of the Board's posters ... especially its "Greater Lights," with whom you apparently wish to be numbered ... simply ignore me anyway! )

[Kenngo1969]

I tend to agree. ...

 

 

Congratulations!  You and DBMormon apparently have quite a Mutual Admiration Society going!  I wish you well!  Feel free to follow his lead in ignoring me!

[Kenngo1969]

DBMormon,

 

For what its worth.  I know I've used the term "ark steadier" on occasion on the Board (and perhaps its predecessors) in the past (other than in this thread).  I will admit to that.  However, just for kicks and giggles, I did a search using my user name and the terms "ark steadier" and "arksteadier" on Google, and, ironically, other than this thread, insofar as I can tell, the only results returned were on threads on which both you and I have participated ... but guess which one of us used the term?  (You have a 50% chance of being right.   To be fair, as near as I can tell, unlike mine, your use hasn't involved calling anyone else an ark steadier, but, rather, has involved your inviting other people to call you one.) You're welcome to your apparent perception that my use of the term is much more frequent than it actually is.  I'm sure, in some cases, I'm guilty as charged.  However, I suspect that this is an instance in which your perception of how frequently I've used the term in Internet apologetics doesn't necessarily match the reality of how frequently I actually have used it.

[EllenMaksoud]

Despite all the hubub about this subject, I have talked to no women that want Priesthood. Can it be that a tiny few are trying to create a ruction where there is none? I think so. I most certainly am not interested in it.

[JLHPROF]

Despite all the hubub about this subject, I have talked to no women that want Priesthood. Can it be that a tiny few are trying to create a ruction where there is none? I think so. I most certainly am not interested in it.

It's true - they are a very small faction who know how to get a lot of publicity.    And in the end it is really a moot issue since it really isn't going to happen anyway (at least not anytime in the near future).  There is simply no motivation for the GA's to seek revelation or address the issue.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2013/09/why-lds-women-will-not-be-ordained-to-the-priesthood/ - I think I posted this link before but it is an interesting read.

Edited September 27, 2013 by JLHPROF

[EllenMaksoud]

It's true - they are a very small faction who know how to get a lot of publicity.    And in the end it is really a moot issue since it really isn't going to happen anyway (at least not anytime in the near future).  There is simply no motivation for the GA's to seek revelation or address the issue.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2013/09/why-lds-women-will-not-be-ordained-to-the-priesthood/ - I think I posted this link before but it is an interesting read.

I have much to be grateful to Heavenly Father for putting me in the Mormon Church, and believe me, he PUT me in the church. If I have one complaint, albeit a piteous one, I can not make myself heard to the GA, as if what I would tell them is important anyhow. Still there is prayer, and that is my outlet.

[DBMormon]

Sigh!  Alas, if only you could confine your dealings on the Board to the Brethren Bradley, Gardner, Ash, Christensen [i believe it's "e" and not "ia"] and others, rather than having to deal with "The Great Unwashed" such as Li'l Ol' Me, life would be all sweetness and light ...   Oh.  Wait.  You can do that!  Theoretically, you could put 90% (plus) of the Board's participants on "Ignore" ... or, since that would be quite an undertaking, given the Board's 10,000 users, you could simply refuse to pay any attention to us.

 

Have at it!   (You'll be in excellent company!  Most of the Board's posters ... especially its "Greater Lights," with whom you apparently wish to be numbered ... simply ignore me anyway! )

 

You really like the emoticons don't you?  Look, no need to be in a tizzy..  Take a step back and look at this logically

1.) You use the "you can ignore me, if you don't like what I am saying"  -  Well I could go to that card too.  Before calling one a an arksteadier, you could ignore them.  That works both ways.

 

2.) If one is stating that a possible change is positive and that they hope someday the Lord reveals this idea in revelation, and at least some of the brethren see no problem with this line of positioning ( See the following quotes as one can quote mine for either side of this debate)

Elder Uchtdorf 4 titles

"Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities.

It also contradicts the intent and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency—with all its far-reaching consequences—of each and every one of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences."

 

 

Elder Uchtdorf Truth -

We seek for truth wherever we may find it. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “Mormonism is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.”

Yes, we do have the fulness of the everlasting gospel, but that does not mean that we know everything. In fact, one principle of the restored gospel is our belief that God “will yet reveal many great and important things.”

 

 

Brigham Young -

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

 

Hugh B Brown -

We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts.

 

 

Hugh B Brown -

I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent if you are informed.

 

So if at least some leaders express a comfort in members questioning in the Church and seeking truth outside of it - then anyone putting a negative connotation where some leaders refuse to could also be seen as ark steadying.  You don't need to be so defensive. Simply be careful of loaded words that paint people into the FAITHFUL/UNFAITHFUL dichotomy.  And yes you could say I did the same, but I did so hoping it would get you thinking about it.  And obviously you seem in very strong defense mode.  Emoticons and snarkiness to boot.  

 

Rather then ark steadier you could say " I am concerned this line of thinking takes a risk of leading to a point where we are not sustaining our leaders and supporting them"  -  While longer wording, notice is does not lead to one thinking they are being attacked harshly.

 

Ark Steadier is almost never going to be a friendly term to use and it is often misapplied

Edited September 27, 2013 by DBMormon

[juliann]

DB,  do you have a link for the Uchtdorf quotes please?

[JLHPROF]

Quote

"Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities.

It also contradicts the intent and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency—with all its far-reaching consequences—of each and every one of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences."

 

 

Elder Uchtdorf Truth -

Quote

We seek for truth wherever we may find it. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “Mormonism is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.”

Yes, we do have the fulness of the everlasting gospel, but that does not mean that we know everything. In fact, one principle of the restored gospel is our belief that God “will yet reveal many great and important things.”

 

 

Brigham Young -

Quote

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

 

Hugh B Brown -

Quote

We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts.

 

 

Hugh B Brown -

Quote

I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent if you are informed.

 

I really like these quotes, but I have to say I see little evidence of these admonitions being practiced in the church at large.  Questioning the orthodoxy never goes well.  I have many relatives who won't read or look at anything on the gospel that doesn't have the Church logo on the cover.

[DBMormon]

DB,  do you have a link for the Uchtdorf quotes please?

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/four-titles?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

[DBMormon]

 

Quote

 

Elder Uchtdorf Truth -

Quote

 

Brigham Young -

Quote

Hugh B Brown -

Quote

 

Hugh B Brown -

Quote

 

I really like these quotes, but I have to say I see little evidence of these admonitions being practiced in the church at large.  Questioning the orthodoxy never goes well.  I have many relatives who won't read or look at anything on the gospel that doesn't have the Church logo on the cover.

 

And hence the problem.  We often mistake the general consensus as Doctrine.  That because everyone thinks A,B,C then ABC must be Doctrine and true.

Take for instance Anti-Mormon literature.  There is a culture in the Church that teaches us we should never touch it and that it is suggested by Top Leaders that we leave it alone.  Now go to LDS.ORG and search for anti-mormon.  Now check all the references and find me three that suggest anti-mormon material is prohibited or heavily suggested that we not read it.  Good Luck.   (I am not suggesting that we should obsess with it, only that the Culture has it wrong and we too easily accept culture as Doctrine)  Women can't pray first in Sacrament, Women can't pray in conference, Women can't be a concluding speaker in a sacrament meeting, saved by works with Grace only being a slight help to fill the gap, Tithing is on Gross, Joseph used the nephite interpreters to translate, and 100's of other things we held as fact that in turn we were wrong that once we didn't accept something simply because that's the way we alsways did it and try to get down to real Doctrine, we often find nuggets of truth that look different then we expect

[Kenngo1969]

Whew!  Snarkiness and defensiveness?  I was being neither snarky nor defensive.  I am entirely sincere when I say that if you wish simply to confine your dialogues to conversing with the Board's "Greater Lights" while ignoring its perceived "Lesser Lights" such as myself, that is your prerogative.  I won't stand in your way.  I wish you well.   (There!  I wrote a whole two and a half lines with only one emoticon!  I'll bet you're relieved (and proud of me) aren't you?!)

[Bob Crockett]

 

Ark Steadier is almost never going to be a friendly term to use and it is often misapplied

You are an Ark Steadier, but I'm not sure how terrible that might be around here.  I don' t that is much of an offense.  

 

You started this thread about agitating for change so that women could receive the priesthood.  However, I pointed out that unlike the blacks and the priesthood issue, there is direct revelatory material from Joseph Smith which says that women cannot lead the Church.   I was really hoping for a comment from you on that.   How can you be pressing for a change when it is directly opposed to revealed scripture?

 

What's worse, writing with a bunch of emoticons or using lots of exclamation points?  I don't think it matters.      !!!!

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

You started this thread about agitating for change so that women could receive the priesthood. 

  I didn't start this thread and in fact until the last day or so, I said nothing in this thread either.

[DBMormon]

Also Bob, I have not taken a stance on this issue.  I support the Church's policy and if a change happened, I would welcome it.  I am neither for or against PH for women, so again you find yourself as usual incorrect and off the deep end.

[Kenngo1969]

You really like the emoticons don't you? Look, no need to be in a tizzy.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, “in a tizzy.” And yes, I am rather fond of the liberal use of emoticons. But it’s rather apparent to me that, notwithstanding my efforts to soften any perceived blows, you don’t understand my posting style. Perhaps I am entirely alone in the world, but I think there’s a big difference between emoticons such as these ( ) and these ( ). You have imputed emotions relating to the former set of emoticons above to me, when I have used the latter set of emoticons, above. If you would prefer that I not use any emoticons in future cyber-interactions with you, I’ll try to remember that; but it’s difficult to alter an overall, deeply-ingrained posting style for a single poster. (Oops! Sorry!)

I am being entirely serious and sincere (previous use of emoticons notwithstanding) when I said that if you would prefer to confine your interactions to the Board’s “Greater Lights” while ignoring its perceived “lower lights” such as myself, you’re entirely welcome to do that. Most posters here do exactly that, and I don’t fear, fret, fume, or froth at the mouth wondering why they don’t pay any attention to (or otherwise discount) my contributions.

Upcoming Emoticon Alert – The Accompanying Text Should Not Be Read As Insincerity on My Part, Use of Emoticon Notwithstanding. Ready? I wish you well.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Kenngo1969