K-2 Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Happy International Women's Day! 2 Ne. 26:3333 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not? 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Happy International Women's Day! The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not?No that scripture was what we failed to realize as a people, which caused the error to take place. Just like in the birth of this nation, that "all men are created equal".
K-2 Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Pa Pa, most members didn't think of the possibility of the priesthood restriction being an error until after 1978. You don't think that the same thing is possible with women? Maybe it will take us longer to realize that "male and female" are alike regarding priesthood in the same way that "black and white" are. Either that, or maybe the scripture should not be applied to the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978. Edited March 8, 2014 by K-2
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Pa Pa, most members didn't think of the possibility of the priesthood restriction being an error until after 1978. You don't think that the same thing is possible with women? Maybe it will take us longer to realize that "male and female" are alike regarding priesthood in the same way that "black and white" are. Either that, or maybe the scripture should not be applied to the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978.No, because with the Priesthood and women you have thousands of years of scriptural history for lack of a better term, in tandem with almost every other theological institution in the world.
The Nehor Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Pa Pa, most members didn't think of the possibility of the priesthood restriction being an error until after 1978. You don't think that the same thing is possible with women? Maybe it will take us longer to realize that "male and female" are alike regarding priesthood in the same way that "black and white" are. Either that, or maybe the scripture should not be applied to the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978. Actually, a lot of members thought it might be changing soon or thought it was in error. The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not? No. It could certainly be used to support such a change if it came but the laws of passing the Priesthood come from those who hold priesthood keys. A bishop could not justify ordaining laurels as priests based on reading that scripture. Hopefully women will be ordained soon but who knows if it is going to happen? I certainly don't. Something big is coming but I am not sure if this is it.
Tiki Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 God does not need to bestow the priesthood on his daughters for them to be considered equal before him. Or He would have done it a long time ago. Your belief that He should is similar to the belief that if a child dies in infancy without baptism, that little child won't be saved in the Kingdom of God. God is not unjust.
Coreyb Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Happy International Women's Day! The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not?I prefer the interpretation that the black and white in this scripture has nothing to do with race 1
why me Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Happy International Women's Day! The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not?Are you behind this website: http://whatwomenknow.org/all_are_alike/ If you are not, you seem to be a supporter. The scripture is basically that we are all equal to have his goodness. The key is in this part of the verse: he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; It would be a stretch to attribute that verse to ordaining women to the priesthood. But this verse does apply to all humanity to partake of his goodness. . Edited March 8, 2014 by why me 3
why me Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Happy International Women's Day! International Women's Day was widely celebrated in the communist bloc and also in some countries in europe. It was known as a socialist holiday which celebrated womanhood. Women were given flowers and other presents by the men. I used to send my Soviet girlfriend a beautiful card for that day. In the west, mother's day is celebrated. But american communists celebrated the holiday. But since it was looked on as a socialist holiday, it never took in america. But in the soviet union on this day, there were red flowers everywhere.Yellow flowers celebrating the future spring were also prevalent in the hands of men as they went to their wives and girlfriends. http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/24922291.html These posters in the link are beautiful. Edited March 8, 2014 by why me
Popular Post Sleeper Cell Posted March 8, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 8, 2014 Happy International Women's Day! The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not? Since the same scripture states: “he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile,” why not extend the argument further to justify giving the priesthood to non-members and even to non-Christians? If the priesthood restriction was a mistake -- a misinterpretation of scripture to fit the popular culture of the day -- shouldn’t the lesson learned from that mistake be: “be careful not to misinterpret scriptures to fit the popular culture of our day?” 6
why me Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Hopefully women will be ordained soon but who knows if it is going to happen?Women can't be ordained without ordaining girls. It would have to be inclusive as the male priesthood. Speaking about women is a misnomer. It is about females who have reached a certain age. If females are ordained, it would send a shock wave through church structures. Why have relief society if all have the priesthood? Why have the separatioin of the sexes in youth organizations and in church meetings? Will females have the right to refuse the priesthood? Males really must accept the priesthood and are primed to do so from an early age. I have never known any male to refuse the priesthood. Will it be the same for females? I think that many women would leave the church or it would cast tremendous doubt in women's minds. My own daughters do not want the priesthood. Where would there place be in the church if they refuse the priesthood?
Freedom Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Pa Pa, most members didn't think of the possibility of the priesthood restriction being an error until after 1978. You don't think that the same thing is possible with women? Maybe it will take us longer to realize that "male and female" are alike regarding priesthood in the same way that "black and white" are. Either that, or maybe the scripture should not be applied to the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978.You are assuming that the ban was an error. I see many interpretations of the ban as being in error, but not necessarily the ban itself. Christ instituted a ban in his day. Ancient Israel had an even stricture limitation.
CV75 Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Happy International Women's Day! The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not?It's a very confusing scripture because it doesn't specify "gay and straight".. 1
K-2 Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) So when the scripture says "He denieth none" and it doesn't matter what the personal characteristics of anyone are, both "black and white" or both "male and female" being acceptable, should we conclude that it is not to be applied to priesthood ordination? That's what I'm getting from some of your responses. Edited March 8, 2014 by K-2
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 You are assuming that the ban was an error. I see many interpretations of the ban as being in error, but not necessarily the ban itself. Christ instituted a ban in his day. Ancient Israel had an even stricture limitation.Does make a point, as in one degree or another the Priesthood has always been given to some and refused to others. Each time based in some part on linage.
Calm Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness I suppose one could read "priesthood" into "goodness", but I don't see it myself. For example, "goodness" here makes no sense if "priesthood" is substituted: 11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel. Edited March 8, 2014 by calmoriah
why me Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 So when the scripture says "He denieth none" and it doesn't matter what the personal characteristics of anyone are, both "black and white" or both "male and female" being acceptable, should we conclude that it is not to be applied to priesthood ordination? That's what I'm getting from some of your responses.Yes we can conclude that. Unfortunately, when Joseph and Oliver received the priesthood, emma was excluded. If all were to get the priesthood both male and female why was emma excluded? Also, the apostles were all men at the time of christ. Why not have women apostles at the time of christ? So, we have a problem. However, since christ is goodness, we all have a right to partake of that goodness.
cinepro Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Happy International Women's Day! The above scripture has been used to explain the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978, but I'm wondering, if it mentions "male and female" as well as "black and white," do you think the argument could logically be extended to justify the ordination of women in the LDS Church? Why do you think so, or why not? That scripture was around a long time before 1978. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it suddenly took on new meaning 148 years after it was first published.
Tiki Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 That scripture was around a long time before 1978. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it suddenly took on new meaning 148 years after it was first published.It'll soon be used to argue that men and women are of the same gender.
CV75 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 So when the scripture says "He denieth none" and it doesn't matter what the personal characteristics of anyone are, both "black and white" or both "male and female" being acceptable, should we conclude that it is not to be applied to priesthood ordination? That's what I'm getting from some of your responses.I think it does not apply to priesthood ordination but to the bigger and more eternally significant picture of priesthood power. In the day it was written it seems ordination was only for men, but even if someone wishes to argue tat it wasn't, priesthood power still trumps ordination (per D&C 121). 1
pogi Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 So when the scripture says "He denieth none" and it doesn't matter what the personal characteristics of anyone are, both "black and white" or both "male and female" being acceptable, should we conclude that it is not to be applied to priesthood ordination? That's what I'm getting from some of your responses. You have to take that in context. It says "he inviteth all to come unto him to partake of his goodness (not his priesthood); and he denieth none..." In other words he does not deny any that come unto him to partake of his goodness which are the waters of life. He invites all to come and freely partake and refuses none.
teddyaware Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Pa Pa, most members didn't think of the possibility of the priesthood restriction being an error until after 1978. You don't think that the same thing is possible with women? Maybe it will take us longer to realize that "male and female" are alike regarding priesthood in the same way that "black and white" are. Either that, or maybe the scripture should not be applied to the ending of the priesthood restriction in 1978.In discussions on this topic, I'm often perplexed that very rarely will anyone brings up a fact that any knowledgeable and experienced Latter-day Saint should know, and that is that women who are exalted in the celestial kingdom are one day going to be queens and priestesses unto God in the same way that exalted men will be kings and priests unto God. The fact that women are eventually going to hold some kind of priestesshood is a fait accompli and should effectively stop all the griping about women holding the priesthood per se. The leaders of the Church are fully aware that women are going to hold this priestesshood, and I'm supremely confident that when the Lord is ready to reveal the time for this to take place it will happen. And I would think the personal righteousness and humility of the LDS women will be much more effective in hastening the day of the revelation of this priestesshood than will all the carping and pestering we se from Mormon feminists who, at least to me, seem to be more fixated on the acquisition of earthly power and authority than they are with the blessings of eternal power in celestial glory."Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple." (Official Declaration 2) Edited March 9, 2014 by teddyaware 1
K-2 Posted March 10, 2014 Author Posted March 10, 2014 No, teddyaware, the women will be queens and priestesses to their husbands, which is not "in the same way," which "any knowledgeable and experienced Latter-day Saint" really should know.
teddyaware Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) No, teddyaware, the women will be queens and priestesses to their husbands, which is not "in the same way," which "any knowledgeable and experienced Latter-day Saint" really should know. You're correct. Exalted women will be queens and priestesses unto their husbands who are gods, and the husbands will be kings and priest unto God. But in the end there won't be much of a difference for the exalted women will still be queens and priestesses unto a god who posses all power and glory. 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C132) Edited March 10, 2014 by teddyaware 1
CV75 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 No, teddyaware, the women will be queens and priestesses to their husbands, which is not "in the same way," which "any knowledgeable and experienced Latter-day Saint" really should know.It is in the same way because they are truly one, and one with God.
Recommended Posts