Taking Advice From The Peanut Gallery

[jkwilliams]

In the threads about the "Ordain Women" movement, it's become clear that, for some people, even more offensive than the idea that women should have the priesthood is the notion that members would agitate for change from within.

Revelation in the LDS church is supposed to come through those priesthood holders with stewardship, or responsibility, to receive such revelation. Thus, a bishop may be inspired to do something that affects his ward, whereas the president of the church may receive revelation for the entire church. I have been around long enough to know that changes, even revelations, come according to changing circumstances, which is as it should be for a church that professes continuing revelation.

Someone in another thread asked what would happen if the brethren announced that they had listened to the OW folks, had prayed for guidance, and had received a negative response. I may have misunderstood, but I had the distinct impression that some people would have been upset had the brethren even acknowledged these women and their concerns.

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

[JLHPROF]

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

 

It's not wrong for the brethren to ask in response to peoples concerns.  It is wrong to keep asking after an answer has been received or if there is already revelation to the purpose.  Then it becomes badgering the Lord as in the case of the 116 pages and they may get the wrong answer (the do it if you want but on your own head answer).

[CV75]

In the threads about the "Ordain Women" movement, it's become clear that, for some people, even more offensive than the idea that women should have the priesthood is the notion that members would agitate for change from within.

Revelation in the LDS church is supposed to come through those priesthood holders with stewardship, or responsibility, to receive such revelation. Thus, a bishop may be inspired to do something that affects his ward, whereas the president of the church may receive revelation for the entire church. I have been around long enough to know that changes, even revelations, come according to changing circumstances, which is as it should be for a church that professes continuing revelation.

Someone in another thread asked what would happen if the brethren announced that they had listened to the OW folks, had prayed for guidance, and had received a negative response. I may have misunderstood, but I had the distinct impression that some people would have been upset had the brethren even acknowledged these women and their concerns.

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

The problem is with agitating, with its inherent enmity and contention. There are more subtle, civil and passive was to seek change, but spiritually they may be just as distressing for the Lord and His people (the lost lamb was not an agitator). We have guidance as to how to have edifying, revelatory conversations (D&C 50:17-20; 88:122-126).

 

Those with the Gift of the Holy Ghost may listen to complainers and agitators, but still listen to the Spirit first and foremost, and be guided as to what to do with the information. The talks during conference, in my opinion, show that there has been a lot of listening to all kinds of members who have questions or issues about women and priesthood, and that the Spirit has guided their response.

 

So it would definitely be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance on that basis alone. We already sustain them to receive ongoing and continuing revelation, so as we work together with them, revelations will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation from some.

[jmhughes]

All revelation seems to come by first asking a question.  The first vision, extending the priesthood to all worthy males, etc.  I believe asking is necessary in order to get further revelation because any other approach seems to violate agency.  

[Duncan]

In the threads about the "Ordain Women" movement, it's become clear that, for some people, even more offensive than the idea that women should have the priesthood is the notion that members would agitate for change from within.

Revelation in the LDS church is supposed to come through those priesthood holders with stewardship, or responsibility, to receive such revelation. Thus, a bishop may be inspired to do something that affects his ward, whereas the president of the church may receive revelation for the entire church. I have been around long enough to know that changes, even revelations, come according to changing circumstances, which is as it should be for a church that professes continuing revelation.

Someone in another thread asked what would happen if the brethren announced that they had listened to the OW folks, had prayed for guidance, and had received a negative response. I may have misunderstood, but I had the distinct impression that some people would have been upset had the brethren even acknowledged these women and their concerns.

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

 

it isn't wrong to listen! I think the issue comes in when if they acknowledge them will either spur them onto other things or encourage other groups or people in the Church to see if they get the President's attention so much so he mentions it in General Conference. If Pres. Monson had said we prayed about it and God said no then that I think will have bad results. So, the brethren, maybe, look at why do some women want the Priesthood? maybe look at some possible sources for it and address that.

[ERayR]

In the threads about the "Ordain Women" movement, it's become clear that, for some people, even more offensive than the idea that women should have the priesthood is the notion that members would agitate for change from within.

Revelation in the LDS church is supposed to come through those priesthood holders with stewardship, or responsibility, to receive such revelation. Thus, a bishop may be inspired to do something that affects his ward, whereas the president of the church may receive revelation for the entire church. I have been around long enough to know that changes, even revelations, come according to changing circumstances, which is as it should be for a church that professes continuing revelation.

Someone in another thread asked what would happen if the brethren announced that they had listened to the OW folks, had prayed for guidance, and had received a negative response. I may have misunderstood, but I had the distinct impression that some people would have been upset had the brethren even acknowledged these women and their concerns.

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

 

It appears to me they already have.  Several of the conference addresses from the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve seem to be the result of just such a process. 

[Storm Rider]

It appears to me they already have.  Several of the conference addresses from the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve seem to be the result of just such a process. 

 

That is true, but what didn't happen is for the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First and Second Quorum of Seventy to personally invite these important people to Salt Lake City for an opportunity to be instructed by these enlightened few in a better way how to more properly administer and officiate in the Church of Jesus Christ. You see, to have conference talks that address the topic is not nearly as important as having the media spotlight on these individuals.  

 

Any individual, group, or organization that prefers to use the media to achieve their objectives when it is a spiritual matter already announces that it is not about the topic, it is about them personally. They demand that the attention, the power be in their hands and no one else. 

[escott3564]

The answers are there. The brethren need to be guided in making the right choices.

As I mentioned in another thread, the early Church established that endowed women were able to act in the name of the Holy Melchizadek Priesthood to give blessings to the sick and to bless babies. I am not sure why this was discontinued, but maybe it is time for this to be reestablished. Also, when Joseph Smith initially organized the Relief Society, he did not organize it as an auxiliary to the Priesthood. It was the equal organization for women. It should be a stand alone organization just as Priesthood is. RS is merely another branch or quorum of the priesthood just like Elders Quorum, High Priest Quorum, etc.

[ERayR]

The answers are there. The brethren need to be guided in making the right choices.

 

 

Yep and the "right choices" are the ones that I agree with.

[ERayR]

Any individual, group, or organization that prefers to use the media to achieve their objectives when it is a spiritual matter already announces that it is not about the topic, it is about them personally. They demand that the attention, the power be in their hands and no one else. 

 

All the more reason to not meet with them.

[thesometimesaint]

In the threads about the "Ordain Women" movement, it's become clear that, for some people, even more offensive than the idea that women should have the priesthood is the notion that members would agitate for change from within.

Revelation in the LDS church is supposed to come through those priesthood holders with stewardship, or responsibility, to receive such revelation. Thus, a bishop may be inspired to do something that affects his ward, whereas the president of the church may receive revelation for the entire church. I have been around long enough to know that changes, even revelations, come according to changing circumstances, which is as it should be for a church that professes continuing revelation.

Someone in another thread asked what would happen if the brethren announced that they had listened to the OW folks, had prayed for guidance, and had received a negative response. I may have misunderstood, but I had the distinct impression that some people would have been upset had the brethren even acknowledged these women and their concerns.

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

 

It was the complaints of Emma that got us the WoW.

[thesometimesaint]

The answers are there. The brethren need to be guided in making the right choices.

As I mentioned in another thread, the early Church established that endowed women were able to act in the name of the Holy Melchizadek Priesthood to give blessings to the sick and to bless babies. I am not sure why this was discontinued, but maybe it is time for this to be reestablished. Also, when Joseph Smith initially organized the Relief Society, he did not organize it as an auxiliary to the Priesthood. It was the equal organization for women. It should be a stand alone organization just as Priesthood is. RS is merely another branch or quorum of the priesthood just like Elders Quorum, High Priest Quorum, etc.

 

Delineation of authority.

[ERayR]

The answers are there. The brethren need to be guided in making the right choices.

 

 

 

You mean by somebody other than God?  Somebody that agrees with you all the time?

[Buzzard]

The answers are there. The brethren need to be guided in making the right choices.

As I mentioned in another thread, the early Church established that endowed women were able to act in the name of the Holy Melchizadek Priesthood to give blessings to the sick and to bless babies. I am not sure why this was discontinued, but maybe it is time for this to be reestablished. Also, when Joseph Smith initially organized the Relief Society, he did not organize it as an auxiliary to the Priesthood. It was the equal organization for women. It should be a stand alone organization just as Priesthood is. RS is merely another branch or quorum of the priesthood just like Elders Quorum, High Priest Quorum, etc.

You may have solved the problem. We can just ordain them all "Sisters", call it the RS quorum, and tell them that their priesthood duty is to visit teach and bake casseroles for funerals. 

[escott3564]

You mean by somebody other than God?  Somebody that agrees with you all the time?

 

No, that's not what I meant, nor what I said. Take the chip off your shoulder and read what I'm writing instead of trying to interpret what I'm saying.  They should be guided by God just as Joseph Smith was when he orinigally set things up.

[escott3564]

You may have solved the problem. We can just ordain them all "Sisters", call it the RS quorum, and tell them that their priesthood duty is to visit teach and bake casseroles for funerals. 

 

 

That could certainly be one duty, yes.

[wenglund]

Who needs prophets when there are so many members skilled in publicity stunts "agitating" to get their way with all their pet agendas? The Savior sure didn't know what he was doing when he laid the ecclesiastical foundation of his earthly kingdom, set himself at the head, and prioritized the principles of obedience and humility. Mob rule, driven by pride and envy, has always been best.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

The men may be the head, but women are the neck and the neck can turn the head anyway she wants.

[Avatar4321]

Who needs prophets when there are so many members skilled in publicity stunts "agitating" to get their way with all their pet agendas? The Savior sure didn't know what he was doing when he laid the ecclesiastical foundation of his earthly kingdom, set himself at the head, and prioritized the principles of obedience and humility. Mob rule, driven by pride and envy, has always been best.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think we are all supposed to become prophets in our own right. The Spirit of Prophecy is a testimony of Christ.

[TAO]

My question is this: Do you think it would be wrong for the brethren to listen to complainers and agitators and ask the Lord for guidance? Or do you believe that, if revelation comes, it will come from the Lord, regardless of any complaints or agitation?

 

Eh, I hope this isn't contentions... =0

 

Anyways, revelation is revelation, and it's not for me to say when and when not the Lord gives it.  He works in marvelous ways, which we do not expect sometimes.  So I'll leave that up to him to determine when to give it, considering his awesomeness.

 

On the other hand, the Lord (at least in what I've seen in him) does not truly like agitation.  He prefers those who are patient and meek and willing to wait and accept his will.  That's the main problem with the agitators.  They are too strong minded.  When Africans asked for the Priesthood, from what I hear, they wrote letters, not demanding, but asking the First Presidency to ask.  They got letters back saying it wasn't the time yet.  But they asked, they didn't demand.  This I think is a spirit the Lord likes.  They were patient and meek and willing to wait and accept the Lord's will, even if it was hard for them, or not what they wanted.  And I think the Lord loved that, and loved them.

 

In any case yeah, I just wish they wouldn't agitate.  Ask, yes, that is fine, that is good.  But to push, is not leaving room for the Lord to say no.  We need to leave room for him to say no.  Or else we will end up with things we won't like as much.

Edited October 7, 2013 by TAO

[TAO]

It should be a stand alone organization just as Priesthood is

I must say, it should not stand alone.  It should stand together.  The Lord wants us all to work together to bring his righteous kingdom to the world.

Edited October 7, 2013 by TAO

[Buckeye]

It's not wrong for the brethren to ask in response to peoples concerns.  It is wrong to keep asking after an answer has been received or if there is already revelation to the purpose.  Then it becomes badgering the Lord as in the case of the 116 pages and they may get the wrong answer (the do it if you want but on your own head answer).

 

So how many times did the Prophets ask about removing the racial priesthood ban?  Why would President Kimball continue asking, and continue asking, even after his and his predecessor's many prior requests had not resulted in a removal of the ban?

[wenglund]

I think we are all supposed to become prophets in our own right. The Spirit of Prophecy is a testimony of Christ.

 

Yes, and that means we are all supposed to become (or have become in OW's case) prophets to and leaders of the Church, and the Spirit of Prophecy is the testimony of political correctness.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

So how many times did the Prophets ask about removing the racial priesthood ban?  Why would President Kimball continue asking, and continue asking, even after his and his predecessor's many prior requests had not resulted in a removal of the ban?

 

Who knows? Maybe it wasn't the time for it.

[rpn]

IME, it is entirely possible that the Lord can use another person, even one without stewardship, to prompt a leader to take action.   And every wise leader spends time seeking out what his/her flock's current concerns and eternal needs might be, particularly from those whose life experiences are different from his own, and who thinks differently that he/she does (since they are the most likely to raise issues he/she hasn't yet considered, or point out angles that need to be addressed in the decision.  

 

But it is quite unlikely that it was His inspiration that was behind this movement which appears quite calculated to challenge the church and the leadership head on.  I think the group really believes that it was popular opinion which brought about OD-2 in 1978.

 

What is interesting to me is that the movement may well have brought about a live transmitted Priesthood session (accompanied by official counsel for brethren to continue going to the buildings to participate there).   After all that decision was a real way to respond to the OW without acquiescing to allow their desired symbolism (since they claimed it would be acknowledgement that they were "prospective elders")  (The press releases did not tie the live stream decision to the OW ticket denial, but the releases were issued at about the same time and removed any argument about there being no reason not to open up the priesthood meeting to all).   

 

I have noticed that some members are outraged at that suggestion, but I see it as another "So why do we have to continue doing things this way" moment.   And personally I hope my leaders are always asking themselves that question, so the church can distinguish tradition from doctrine.

 

I don't think the protest movement brought about women praying in conference (because the newsroom press release said those decisions were made before the protest movement wrote the letter demanding it), but I think it entirely possible that the concerns that started circulating the previous summer triggered a lightbulb with someone in the brethren starting a discussion about, "So why don't we ask women to pray in General Conference". 

Edited October 7, 2013 by rpn