Foundational Doctrine Must Change For Women To Be Ordained

[Kenngo1969]

Hiccup!

Edited September 27, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

...  There is simply no motivation for the GA's to seek revelation or address the issue.

True, revelation often comes in response to a specific question or seeking understanding about a particular matter, but does it always have to come in that manner? There have been times when I have received completely unexpected revelation on matters I wasn't even considering. Doesn't saying that revelation must come in response to seeking/questioning with regard to a certain matter circumscribe God's alleged omnipotence and omniscience?

P.S.: True, God is waiting for us to be ready before revealing certain things, but does that mean that He's always simply overlooking His creation, tapping his foot and impatiently checking His watch until we're ready? Or does revelation come, not always when we're expecting it, but when He's ready to give it to us?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Bob Crockett]

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.

 

Have you no response to my point about Joseph Smith?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Have you no response to my point about Joseph Smith?

 

Bob you asked

"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?"

 

 

Since 1.) I did not start the thread   2.) I did not agitate for change  , I am confused why you still see a need for me to answer

For the record though I am content with Joseph Quote and current policy, though like I said, if change came , I would welcome it.

 

Lastly, Did you see my podcast episodes on FAIRMORMON - http://fairblog.org ?

Edited September 27, 2013 by DBMormon

[Cobalt-70]

CFR

 

That slavery was in part justified by a "separate but equal" patriarchy is a conclusion drawn from a lot of sources. Here is one:

 

"Around 600 A.D., Pope Gregory I taught that all men are equal in nature before God, but that 'a hidden dispensation of providence' produced 'a hierarchy of merit and rulership'....The task of the slaveholder is then seen as one of Divine calling."

...

"outhern slaveholders viewed themselves as 'enlightened patriarchs,' caring for their families, their land, their herds and their servants, after the fashion of the biblical patriarchs."

 

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/foutz-slavery.shtml

 

Then, as now, nobody seemed to register the irony that social hierarchy is the antithesis of equality. Two genetic classes of people cannot be equal when one class presides over the other, and the subordinate class has to "hearken to the counsel" of the presiding class.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

 

That's an interesting but unsupported slant on the doctrine of foreordination. I don't agree with it.

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.

Speaking of absurd...

 

(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.)

OK. I won't bother.

There is no way to read Alma 13 other than as doctrinal evidence that only men have been, are, and will be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. In order for women to be ordained, this chapter would have to renounced or altered.

[Storm Rider]

That slavery was in part justified by a "separate but equal" patriarchy is a conclusion drawn from a lot of sources. Here is one:

 

"Around 600 A.D., Pope Gregory I taught that all men are equal in nature before God, but that 'a hidden dispensation of providence' produced 'a hierarchy of merit and rulership'....The task of the slaveholder is then seen as one of Divine calling."

...

"outhern slaveholders viewed themselves as 'enlightened patriarchs,' caring for their families, their land, their herds and their servants, after the fashion of the biblical patriarchs."

 

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/foutz-slavery.shtml

 

Then, as now, nobody seemed to register the irony that social hierarchy is the antithesis of equality. Two genetic classes of people cannot be equal when one class presides over the other, and the subordinate class has to "hearken to the counsel" of the presiding class.

Equal before whom? What definition of equal are you using? Does the servant that produces one talent equal to the servant that produces ten talents? Is the servant equal to the master of the vineyard?

[rodheadlee]

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.

Thank you!

[juliann]

 

 

Should a 6yo protest because they are not allowed to be baptised?  To me this is a similar scinereo - one day worthy women will be anoited queens and priestesses, but this will probably not happen within our mortal life... just as a 6yo can one day be baptised, but it would be wrong to rush the process and baptize a child that has not yet come to a full understanding of what they need to learn. 

 

I am sure you do not intend to but you are saying that men are complete in knowledge but women still have to learn as much as children.  This is very demeaning.   One of the most common things said in the Civil Rights era was that blacks "had to earn" their rights. 

 

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.

All women are mothers only came into play after motherhood became the only sanctioned role for women.  They then had to back up and include the women who weren't.  So this is a very strained and unsustainable definition of motherhood as evidenced by the fact we do not go around assuring 20 year old men they are fathers.   Motherhood by anybody's definition is the act of raising children.   In the church, it has everything to do with being married and giving birth (although adoption is, of course, accepted).   It would be absurd to be sitting in a room full of childless women being told they are mothers.  The best we can do is set up metaphors but when it comes to the point that we expect women to truly think that they are as much a "mother" as a mother...well, it is the day that great numbers of women begin to feel something is missing.

[juliann]

 

 

 

OK. I won't bother.

There is no way to read Alma 13 other than as doctrinal evidence that only men have been, are, and will be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. In order for women to be ordained, this chapter would have to renounced or altered.

Do you really want to start fencing off the scriptures to keep them away from half of the church?   Hebrews 7 is a very good primer on how priesthood can change.  It also emphasizes it eternal and not a matter of descent, having no mother or father. 

 

The only appropriate response that I can think of from those that are privileged by their sex to have such a great gift is to want everyone to experience that gift.   That does not mean that it should happen or will, but could a hostile reaction of mine! mine! be that much different than any other kind of protest?

[Maidservant]

Alma 13 will be altered or ignored:

 

 

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

 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.

 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

 5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

 7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

 12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

 13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

 14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

 15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.

 16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

 17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;

 18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

 26 And it shall be made known unto just and holy men, by the mouth of angels, at the time of his coming, that the words of our fathers may be fulfilled, according to that which they have spoken concerning him, which was according to the spirit of prophecy which was in them.

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 have brought this forward before (and it's a marvelous passage), and I think I have replied in a vein similar to the one I am now going to reiterate.  However, it is, of course, an important topic and worth repeating by both yourself and myself.

 

Let me state that I feel it is wrong and a matter of misunderstanding for women to need the Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood in the Church.

 

However, this particular passage is not my support for that.

 

I have always read this passage as being about men and women and I am not going to 'get out' of this verse because I happen to be a daughter.  I am going to continue to understand this verse as relating to my Daughterhood.  The order of the Son of God involves both men and women and is temple-based.  As I understand it, the order of the Son of God is the transformation by covenant of the 'natural man' to 'exalted man' (and women) (there are other passages in the scriptures on this order).  The Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood in the Church (male only) are part of that, certainly, but the doctrine of the order of the Son of God is more far-reaching and pervasive than that.  It encompasses all that we are doing as childrn of God to return Home and the method by which we do it.  At least that is my perspective.

 

[Sleeper Cell]

 

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!

 

Actually I have agreed with far more of your posts over the years than with those of DBMormon. I even agree with you about the underlying issue of this thread.

 

Strictly from a strategic perspective (if for no other reason), phrases such as “steadying the ark” lose their impact if used too often and applied too broadly. If we call those who merely question and speculate “ark steadiers,” what will we call those who go far beyond that?

[Kenngo1969]

Actually I have agreed with far more of your posts over the years than with those of DBMormon. I even agree with you about the underlying issue of this thread.

 

Strictly from a strategic perspective (if for no other reason), phrases such as “steadying the ark” lose their impact if used too often and applied too broadly. If we call those who merely question and speculate “ark steadiers,” what will we call those who go far beyond that?

Fine.  I apologize and repent for uttering The Phrase That Shall Not Be Mentioned !    (And DBMormon, please don't misconstrue my use of emoticons to convey a lack of sincerity.  It does not!)  There.  Now I hope everyone is happy.  In the great words of that recently departed Great Philosopher, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"  I feel a chorus of Kumbaya coming on!  Who's with me?

Edited September 29, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[rodheadlee]

I am sure you do not intend to but you are saying that men are complete in knowledge but women still have to learn as much as children.  This is very demeaning.   One of the most common things said in the Civil Rights era was that blacks "had to earn" their rights. 

 

All women are mothers only came into play after motherhood became the only sanctioned role for women.  They then had to back up and include the women who weren't.  So this is a very strained and unsustainable definition of motherhood as evidenced by the fact we do not go around assuring 20 year old men they are fathers.   Motherhood by anybody's definition is the act of raising children.   In the church, it has everything to do with being married and giving birth (although adoption is, of course, accepted).   It would be absurd to be sitting in a room full of childless women being told they are mothers.  The best we can do is set up metaphors but when it comes to the point that we expect women to truly think that they are as much a "mother" as a mother...well, it is the day that great numbers of women begin to feel something is missing.

Ah yes, the exclusive motherhood club, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse men of. It's no wonder my wife no longer goes to R.S.

[Calm]

Ah yes, the exclusive motherhood club, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse men of. It's no wonder my wife no longer goes to R.S.

I think you've misunderstood her position...Juliann is definitely not a member of the exclusive motherhood club...I don't know of any woman posting on this board with that particularly distasteful sorority.

She is not suggesting we exclude childless women, but rather that we not use "motherhood" as the unique role of women in the spiritual realm...rather we find a meaningful way to talk about womanhood that makes sense when applied to all women as Priesthood makes sense as the role for all males who hold the Priesthood.

Edited September 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

The only appropriate response that I can think of from those that are privileged by their sex to have such a great gift is to want everyone to experience that gift.

I was working in the temple the other day and was mistakenly given a female ordinance card to review. I was impressed with at least one uniquely generous gift that is reserved solely for women. I suppose a righteous woman would want everyone to have this great blessing as well. I certainly want it, I know from the scripture that God wants me to have it, and I have faith that I will receive it someday. But obviously I don’t get it when the women do, and so I must take a different path and wait for it.

 

The male-only priesthood, like this female-only gift I mentioned, leads to the higher, shared priesthood order, where all gifts that were individually given to the man and the woman can finally be realized for both, together. In the meantime, the respective unique gifts are rungs on the ladder for the ultimate shared gifts.

Edited September 30, 2013 by CV75

[Vance]

The only appropriate response that I can think of from those that are privileged by their sex to have such a great gift is to want everyone to experience that gift. 

 

You mean like motherhood?

[juliann]

You mean like motherhood?

I think we call that fatherhood when a man is doing it.  Unless you mean the biological act of gestation and birthing.  I don't think any woman would begrudge men experiencing that.  Although those of us that did not find it pleasant would consider it more of a biological necessity rather than something we would gift.  However, it isn't something that is bestowed upon anyone at age 12... which they can accept or reject... that gives them positions of authority over great numbers of people.  It is biological...just as the man's contribution to procreation is.  (Notice that Elder Ballard's recent devotional talk referred to equal participation in procreation rather than "motherhood")

 

Ah yes, the exclusive motherhood club, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse men of. It's no wonder my wife no longer goes to R.S.

 

I'm unclear as to what I am guilty of, could you explain?

[Bernard Gui]

Do you really want to start fencing off the scriptures to keep them away from half of the church?   Hebrews 7 is a very good primer on how priesthood can change.  It also emphasizes it eternal and not a matter of descent, having no mother or father. 

 

The only appropriate response that I can think of from those that are privileged by their sex to have such a great gift is to want everyone to experience that gift.   That does not mean that it should happen or will, but could a hostile reaction of mine! mine! be that much different than any other kind of protest?

 

 

I have been present at the birth of each of our seven children. I observed that Mrs. Gui was given a great gift by God with which I had had a very insignificant contribution. According to her, the pain of birth, passing through the valley of the shadow of death, and the ultimate joy of holding the newborn child firmly cemented the holy bond of love between them that cannot be broken. Perhaps only one gift is greater than that, but worlds without end, I will not experience her gift.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I think you have brought this forward before (and it's a marvelous passage), and I think I have replied in a vein similar to the one I am now going to reiterate.  However, it is, of course, an important topic and worth repeating by both yourself and myself.

 

Let me state that I feel it is wrong and a matter of misunderstanding for women to need the Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood in the Church.

 

However, this particular passage is not my support for that.

 

I have always read this passage as being about men and women and I am not going to 'get out' of this verse because I happen to be a daughter.  I am going to continue to understand this verse as relating to my Daughterhood.  The order of the Son of God involves both men and women and is temple-based.  As I understand it, the order of the Son of God is the transformation by covenant of the 'natural man' to 'exalted man' (and women) (there are other passages in the scriptures on this order).  The Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood in the Church (male only) are part of that, certainly, but the doctrine of the order of the Son of God is more far-reaching and pervasive than that.  It encompasses all that we are doing as childrn of God to return Home and the method by which we do it.  At least that is my perspective.

 

From my perspective, the doctrine of the Melchizedek priesthood as described in Alma 13 would have to be rejected. 

[juliann]

I have been present at the birth of each of our seven children. I observed that Mrs. Gui was given a great gift by God with which I had had a very insignificant contribution. According to her, the pain of birth, passing through the valley of the shadow of death, and the ultimate joy of holding the newborn child firmly cemented the holy bond of love between them that cannot be broken. Perhaps only one gift is greater than than, but worlds without end, I will not experience her gift.

The pain of childbirth?   My mother's generation were so drugged they didn't even remember it.  Now there is a frightening incidence of surgery.   You don't have to even be conscious,  I know cause they ended up knocking me out.  Now holding your child...that is awesome.  But my husband and I did that together.  I do suspect there is a special bond but I will never know until I can experience the bond my husband felt.   He was always more "nurturing" than I was.  He wouldn't allow the baby to cry,  even when he was extremely debilitated with cancer he would put her in the stroller and walk her around the house until she went to sleep if she cried at night. 

 

Again, as miraculous as the birth of a child is, it takes two.  Or used to.  It is not comparable in any way to the priesthood, it can only be compared to fatherhood.  And I don't think that diminishing a father's bond elevates the mother's bond. 

[Bernard Gui]

Do you really want to start fencing off the scriptures to keep them away from half of the church?   Hebrews 7 is a very good primer on how priesthood can change.  It also emphasizes it eternal and not a matter of descent, having no mother or father. 

 

There is nothing in Hebrews 7 that could be construed not to limit the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods to men. If you see a way, please share it.

[Bernard Gui]

The pain of childbirth?   My mother's generation were so drugged they didn't even remember it.  Now there is a frightening incidence of surgery.   You don't have to even be conscious,  I know cause they ended up knocking me out.  Now holding your child...that is awesome.  But my husband and I did that together.  I do suspect there is a special bond but I will never know until I can experience the bond my husband felt.   He was always more "nurturing" than I was.  He wouldn't allow the baby to cry,  even when he was extremely debilitated with cancer he would put her in the stroller and walk her around the house until she went to sleep if she cried at night. 

 

Again, as miraculous as the birth of a child is, it takes two.  Or used to.  It is not comparable in any way to the priesthood, it can only be compared to fatherhood.  And I don't think that diminishing a father's bond elevates the mother's bond. 

In no way do I diminish the father's bond with his children. The experience of creating a life within one's body, nurturing the growth, and seeing it expressed from within is something

I can never do. I disagree:  in the eternal scheme, fatherhood and priesthood are one and and same. Father is one of the names of God. There is something we do not understand about

the law of the firstborn and the power inherent in the position, but it is surely bound up in the order after the Son of God, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the foreordination

of sons to that holy order.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Senator]

In no way do I diminish the father's bond with his children. The experience of creating a life within one's body, nurturing the growth, and seeing it expressed from within is something

I can never do. I disagree:  in the eternal scheme, fatherhood and priesthood are one and and same.

 

 

What's the corollary?

 

fatherhood and priesthood are one and the same

 

motherhood and <           >  are one and the same

Edited October 1, 2013 by Senator

[Calm]

I have been present at the birth of each of our seven children. I observed that Mrs. Gui was given a great gift by God with which I had had a very insignificant contribution. According to her, the pain of birth, passing through the valley of the shadow of death, and the ultimate joy of holding the newborn child firmly cemented the holy bond of love between them that cannot be broken. Perhaps only one gift is greater than that, but worlds without end, I will not experience her gift.

But this is not true for all women. It was not birth and holding my newborns that cemented the bond for me. They were sweet and little aliens that I was too exhausted to care that much about. It took getting to know them for me to attach onto them. From what I understand this is the case with not a few women, especially those who suffer from post partum depression.

On the other hand, my husband was bonded with them practically as soon as they were conceived.