Foundational Doctrine Must Change For Women To Be Ordained

[Calm]

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

Meaning what please?

[Traela]

What's the corollary?

 

fatherhood and priesthood are one and the same

 

motherhood an <           >  are one and the same

Relief Society.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Priesthood is currently required for a 12 year old boy to pass a Sacrament tray. Exactly how does fatherhood fit into that? Priesthood is required for a ward clerk to count the ward's tithing receipts and enter it into a computer. How does this relate to fatherhood, and why do you have to have male genitals to perform these church functions?

[Cobalt-70]

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?

The master of the vineyard is God alone. All of us humans are servants, including women. Women are not servants to the servants.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Likewise, she will never experience the "gift" of creating semen. How does that have anything to do with whether or not a woman can preside over a man within the church, or whether a a woman can give a priesthood blessing to her sick child? Just because men and woman have different biology does not mean that one is more naturally a leader than the other, or that the "role" of the woman is to be subordinate to the man.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[bluebell]

Likewise, she will never experience the "gift" of creating semen. How does that have anything to do with whether or not a woman can preside over a man within the church, or whether a a woman can give a priesthood blessing to her sick child? Just because men and woman have different biology does not mean that one is more naturally a leader than the other, or that the "role" of the woman is to be subordinate to the man.

I don't know that it has anything to do with who deserves to be a leader. (and does anyone really deserve to be a leader anyway? We look down on men who aspire to leadership positions in the church. I'm not sure why women get a pass on that, but that's a different thread...).

I think the only thing it proves is that God blesses His daughters with being co-creators with Him (which is nothing like creating semen, so i'm assuming you were just joking with that), and that such a blessing allows women (in general) to have access to amazing things that men don't have access to, but God is o.k. with that.

And if God is o.k. with keeping some really wonderful blessings away from His sons because of their gender, then it is not illogical to assume that He is also o.k. with keeping some really wonderful blessings away from His daughters because of their gender as well.

That doesn't necessarily mean that this is why women don't have the priesthood and that women should never hold the priesthood. But it does mean that any argument in favor of women having the priesthood that is based on the idea that God would never keep a blessing from them but give it to His sons doesn't hold up.

God says we should seek after every good gift. No where does He say that He's going to give every good gift to us though (at least not in this life). Just because someone doesn't have a 'blessing' and another person does, doesn't mean that God desperately wants that to be corrected. Sometimes, that's just how He sets things up, to serve His own purposes (again, at least in this life).

Edited October 3, 2013 by bluebell

[halconero]

Question. What is the difference between being ordained to the priesthood and being anointed to the priesthood?

 

Furthermore, by what authority do women perform ordinances in the temple?

[DBMormon]

I have a bigger question

How come any time I say something Bob Crockett rushes in, says a lot of innaccurate stuff, and then disappears into oblivion until the next time he sees me post something.

 

Bob - you stated that I started this thread (Wrong)

 

Bob - You said I was pushing for PH for women - (wrong)

 

once pointed out to you, you vanish.  Why are you never around when it becomes obvious that you are simply casting stones at me at every chance? 

 

Bob remember this -

 

 

'Bob Crockett', on 13 Feb 2013 - 4:14 PM, said:

This is board nanny stuff. You will be removed if you put up one more post analyzing a debate partner.

At this point, I resign from this board. I have a little blog on LDS material, often legal-related, which you all might follow. See the link below.

I was originally invited to this board years and years ago to lend my expertise on MMM issues, and it was lots of fun dealing with those. But, at this point, I know not what a "Board Nanny" might be and I can't derive any instructions from the moderators.

 

 

 

Best Idea I have seen yet from you.  And yes I am frustrated that you plaster dishonest statements regularly about me and then disappear when it is time to answer for them. 

[Cobalt-70]

I don't know that it has anything to do with who deserves to be a leader. (and does anyone really deserve to be a leader anyway? We look down on men who aspire to leadership positions in the church. I'm not sure why women get a pass on that, but that's a different thread...).

I think the only thing it proves is that God blesses His daughters with being co-creators with Him (which is nothing like creating semen, so i'm assuming you were just joking with that), and that such a blessing allows women (in general) to have access to amazing things that men don't have access to, but God is o.k. with that.

And if God is o.k. with keeping some really wonderful blessings away from His sons because of their gender, then it is not illogical to assume that He is also o.k. with keeping some really wonderful blessings away from His daughters because of their gender as well.

That doesn't necessarily mean that this is why women don't have the priesthood and that women should never hold the priesthood. But it does mean that any argument in favor of women having the priesthood that is based on the idea that God would never keep a blessing from them but give it to His sons doesn't hold up.

God says we should seek after every good gift. No where does He say that He's going to give every good gift to us though (at least not in this life). Just because someone doesn't have a 'blessing' and another person does, doesn't mean that God desperately wants that to be corrected. Sometimes, that's just how He sets things up, to serve His own purposes (again, at least in this life).

 

It's not like men are biologically capable of giving birth, but the church prohibited men from giving birth as a matter of policy. Unlike childbirth, both men and women are perfectly capable of leading, presiding, passing Sacrament trays, adding up tithing receipts, sitting on Church courts, conducting worthiness interviews, receiving revelation, putting olive oil on somebody's head, or dunking someone under the water. What does any of the above have to do with having male genitalia? Male genitals are great, but they aren't magical.

[CV75]

It's not like men are biologically capable of giving birth, but the church prohibited men from giving birth as a matter of policy. Unlike childbirth, both men and women are perfectly capable of leading, presiding, passing Sacrament trays, adding up tithing receipts, sitting on Church courts, conducting worthiness interviews, receiving revelation, putting olive oil on somebody's head, or dunking someone under the water. What does any of the above have to do with having male genitalia? Male genitals are great, but they aren't magical.

The helpmeet function of a woman is every bit as essential as the priesthood function of a man, and each function corresponds as perfectly to the other as genitalia or anything else that is entailed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which has gender-specific requirements for this reason. The two functions were designed by God to be gender-specific, as we see represented in the accounts of the Garden of Eden and the Resurrection of the Lord. As we examine what the women did and what the men did in these instances, and what they did in relation to each other, we see how the Lord is glorified when they interact according to their respective functions. That one involves ordination and one does not makes no difference. In each instance, women are the helpmeets and men are the priesthood holders, and this vital relationship plays out again and again in manyw ays as we become perfected in Christ.

[bluebell]

It's not like men are biologically capable of giving birth, but the church prohibited men from giving birth as a matter of policy. Unlike childbirth, both men and women are perfectly capable of leading, presiding, passing Sacrament trays, adding up tithing receipts, sitting on Church courts, conducting worthiness interviews, receiving revelation, putting olive oil on somebody's head, or dunking someone under the water. What does any of the above have to do with having male genitalia? Male genitals are great, but they aren't magical.

 

You missed my point.

 

I wasn't talking about who is most capable (I don't think the church leaderswho fully support the gender restriction on the priesthood think it has anything to do with who is most capable either).

 

My only point is that the realities of pregnancy and childbirth being restricted (by God) to women only is one example that proves that God is perfectly fine with withholding certain amazing blessings from some His children (at least during this mortal life). 

 

Since we KNOW that is true, it is a weak argument for anyone to attempt to say that it's obvious that God wants women to hold the priesthood because He would never want them to miss out on blessings He's offering to others.

[Buckeye]

You missed my point.

 

I wasn't talking about who is most capable (I don't think the church leaderswho fully support the gender restriction on the priesthood think it has anything to do with who is most capable either).

 

My only point is that the realities of pregnancy and childbirth being restricted (by God) to women only is one example that proves that God is perfectly fine with withholding certain amazing blessings from some His children (at least during this mortal life). 

 

Since we KNOW that is true, it is a weak argument for anyone to attempt to say that it's obvious that God wants women to hold the priesthood because He would never want them to miss out on blessings He's offering to others.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not 100% sure God designed for only women to give birth.  There are lots of physical realities we don't blame on God (at least anymore) - blindness, shortness, baldness, mental illness, and yes, even infertility amongst many good women. 

[CV75]

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not 100% sure God designed for only women to give birth.

As the women at Jesus' tomb were the first to see Him risen (and tetsify to the apostles of it), and Eve was the first to see the newly risen (awakened) Adam as no longer a single entity in the Garden, and the first to see mortality and explain it all to Adam, women are the first to bring a new spirit into their own souls and then into the world, and in nurturing them tell their husbands about each stage, from conception onward.

[bluebell]

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not 100% sure God designed for only women to give birth.  There are lots of physical realities we don't blame on God (at least anymore) - blindness, shortness, baldness, mental illness, and yes, even infertility amongst many good women. 

 

Are you saying that the ability to give birth is the same as a birth defect-the result of 'bad' genetics, chance, and nothing more?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are you saying that the ability to give birth is the same as a birth defect-the result of 'bad' genetics, chance, and nothing more?

I view them both as evolutionary necessities.

[bluebell]

I view them both as evolutionary necessities.

 

Women having babies and not men is the result of evolutionary chance, and not God's will?

 

Teaching THAT in church would be an example of a 'foundational doctrine that must change'! 

Edited October 4, 2013 by bluebell

[Buckeye]

Are you saying that the ability to give birth is the same as a birth defect-the result of 'bad' genetics, chance, and nothing more?

 

Not the same.  Giving birth is a net-positive.  Birth defects can help foster positive effects but are not positive in and of themselves.   What I'm trying to counter is the idea that, just because something is one way, God intended that.  Way too often we attribute to God's will things that happen in life - hurricanes, winning lottery tickets, a child struck by illness, etc. 

[bluebell]

Not the same.  Giving birth is a net-positive.  Birth defects can help foster positive effects but are not positive in and of themselves.   What I'm trying to counter is the idea that, just because something is one way, God intended that.  Way too often we attribute to God's will things that happen in life - hurricanes, winning lottery tickets, a child struck by illness, etc. 

 

The scriptures specifically say that men and women are made in God's image. That would seem to imply that women can give birth and men can't because that's how God specifically and purposefully made them. 

[JLHPROF]

The scriptures specifically say that men and women are made in God's image. That would seem to imply that women can give birth and men can't because that's how God specifically and purposefully made them. 

 

Actually, to me that scripture seems to imply that God is both male and female, or to be more precise, that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who make up the entity we call God.  (Either that or God is a hermaphrodite which seems unlikely).

[Buckeye]

The scriptures specifically say that men and women are made in God's image. That would seem to imply that women can give birth and men can't because that's how God specifically and purposefully made them. 

 

Unless "image" means the attributes of God (holiness, charity, patience, etc.) instead of bodily attributes (10 fingers, blond hair, a beard, etc.).  For all I care, God could be in the shape of a dolphin, and I would still be able to attain his "likeness."

[bluebell]

Actually, to me that scripture seems to imply that God is both male and female, or to be more precise, that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who make up the entity we call God.  (Either that or God is a hermaphrodite which seems unlikely).

 

LDS doctrine agrees with you. 

 

But the implication is STILL that men and women were designed specifically, with purpose, and with bodies that are the result of God's will.

[bluebell]

Unless "image" means the attributes of God (holiness, charity, patience, etc.) instead of bodily attributes (10 fingers, blond hair, a beard, etc.).  For all I care, God could be in the shape of a dolphin, and I would still be able to attain his "likeness."

 

That's fine if that's how you really and sincerely interpret that verse.  If your Father in Heaven is a dolphin, have at it. 

 

(I don't think it actually works with the context of the verse, since it seems to be directly speaking about the physical creation of adam and eve, but it's not worth it to argue about it)

 

But that's not LDS doctrine, and since we are both LDS, it makes sense that I am approaching this issue from an LDS doctrinal perspective and interpreting verses of scripture based on the doctrines of our church.

 

If you want to argue from a non-LDS position, then tell me that first.  It would obviously impact how I discuss the issue with you.

Edited October 4, 2013 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Women having babies and not men is the result of evolutionary chance, and not God's will?

 

Teaching THAT in church would be an example of a 'foundational doctrine that must change'! 

That would raise some eyebrows!  Note I didn't say evolutionary chance though.  I said evolutionary necessity.  In my mind their is very little accidental about it.  We are specifically talking about the ability to carry a child to term right? Do you believe that is what you will spend eternity doing? Literally birthing spirit children.  I believe that was one of the justifications back in the day for polygamy.  In my mind, spirit children creation has nothing to do with a womb, and hence the physical process of giving birth is just something that we deal with here in mortality.  I'm not saying that gender is not eternal or anything in that regard.  Just that the actual process of giving birth (which I believe only exists in mortality) is only given to women perhaps not by divine decree but evolutionary necessity.

[bluebell]

That would raise some eyebrows!  Note I didn't say evolutionary chance though.  I said evolutionary necessity.  In my mind their is very little accidental about it.  We are specifically talking about the ability to carry a child to term right? Do you believe that is what you will spend eternity doing? Literally birthing spirit children.  I believe that was one of the justifications back in the day for polygamy.  In my mind, spirit children creation has nothing to do with a womb, and hence the physical process of giving birth is just something that we deal with here in mortality.  I'm not saying that gender is not eternal or anything in that regard.  Just that the actual process of giving birth (which I believe only exists in mortality) is only given to women perhaps not by divine decree but evolutionary necessity.

 

I said a few times that I was speaking specifically about 'this mortal life'.  Given those parameters, I'm really not sure how to understand your reply I guess.   

[Buckeye]

That's fine if that's how you really and sincerely interpret that verse.  If your Father in Heaven is a dolphin, have at it. 

 

(I don't think it actually works with the context of the verse, since it seems to be directly speaking about the physical creation of adam and eve, but it's not worth it to argue about it)

 

But that's not LDS doctrine, and since we are both LDS, it makes sense that I am approaching this issue from an LDS doctrinal perspective and interpreting verses of scripture based on the doctrines of our church.

 

If you want to argue from a non-LDS position, then tell me that first.  It would obviously impact how I discuss the issue with you.

 

LDS doctrine teaches that when God has appeared, most often he has had the appearance of a man we would recognize (10 fingers and all that).  But not always.  Sometimes he is a burning bush.  LDS doctrine does not foreclose the possibility that God can take other physical forms that the form we mortals currently hold.  I'm simply open to the idea that our mortal forms are not eternally binding.  Most members have never even considered that possibility.  That's fine.  The only reason I bring it up is to counter your argument that we "know" God designed women to bear children.  Again, I don't know that.  He easily could have.  But it's not absolutely necessary.