Women At The Priesthood Session...again?

[rodheadlee]

So what is Jesus Christ's position on women and the MP? The AP? This is His church. He is supposed to be at the head of it. What is God's will? How does this fit the Plan of Salvation?

[Calm]

I think the church handled the first attempt the exact wrong way. There was an easy way to get almost no media converge and probably less interest, if any at all, to try again.

The group shows up and don't have tickets? then show them the standby line, give them standby tickets, if they get to the front, seat them wherever, and only remove them if they cause a scene... treat them like you do the men.

No story. Probably little coverage. If the church gets asked why they let them in, the newsroom response is "yes it's a male priesthood meeting intended for males, and our policy is to only allow males, but if there were women let in... so be it... not much harm there... It's available to the public in print and online shortly thereafter anyway... It's not like anything secret is going on."

Church comes out looking great and the stunt is completely diffused.

Unfortunately, then the OW would be initerviewed as saying this was recognotion by church leadership as their status as prospective elders...which is how they, not the Church, phrased their attendance. At best, the Church allowing them to attend the meeting merely delays another confrontation, most likely we have media talking how women are one step closer to becoming priests in the LDS faith and speculation about what else is in line AND interpreting all movement to expanding women's roles in that context,detracting from the real significance of those changes plus likely creating resistance among members not happy about the media's protrayal.

[Truth 101]

Technically when the women that are "lucky or 'worthy' enough'" actually do get the priesthood when they go through the 2nd anointment ceremony in the temple and is ordained a goddess and priestess and given the keys of the priesthood.

 

I agree with a lot of people on this thread. If the LDS church just renamed it men's session it would pretty much fix it. I remember asking my mom about women holding the priesthood and what she thought of the 2nd anointment and she said she didn't really care about it, that she would rather not have the responsibility of the priesthood, that men have their place in the church and that women have their place too. My dad's mother is a convert from North Carolina and moved to Utah with my dad, aunt and grandpa in the mid 60's (my grandpa has passed). My grandma's view on women with the priesthood is very passionate. She believes all doctrine without question and her faith is absolute, hell, my grandma is like the opposite of a feminist: she puts men up on a pedestal.

 

I myself am 24 and left the church when I was 16, so I guess you could say I still do actually hold the Aaronic Priesthood but not the Melchezedik, my two younger brothers followed me and also left when I did. My mom however is still a devoit super true-believing 6th generation mormon (I don't think she's missed a tithing payment since she was 8. My dad is a 2nd generation jack mormon, he still considers himself a member of the church and served a mission in Fresno, CA from 1978-1980, but hasn't been to church since 2006, and before that would only go half the time. I asked him if he payed tithing and he said he hadn't made a tithing payment since 2007 (good for him considering he pulls in six figures a year) and he'll have a scotch, vodka and redbull, or beer with me, and has actually admitted to me that he is agnostic when we had been drinking once. We all live together and it's interesting. Even though I left the church I still keep up on it and about what is going on in the church, I'll watch portions of general conference with my mom, I know a lot more about doctrine and whatnot than quite a few members I work with, even the ones that served missions. I'm not anti-mormon, but I'm not pro-mormon either, though I've been known to bash and badmouth the church from time to time. However, I recognize Utah would not be what it is today without the LDS church, I guess you could say I just have a problem with its leadership. Now you might say it shouldn't matter to me but I would disagree, it does. The most important woman (my mother) in my life is a devout mormon, and I live in Utah, where politics and just about everything else is influenced by the church one way or another. To be honest I wish my mom would leave the church and realize that there are so many more things that are so much more real that can fill the void that she fills with faith for the LDS church, I feel like she is filling something that is empty with something that is empty, if that makes sense, and I just love her and want the best for her. But to look at it objectively I must realize that it does give her a sense of purpose, and I must recognize that it probably does hurt her that she lives in a house with 4 other men and herself and she is the only one that still believes in the church. I wish I could fix that but I can't look past the facts, the truth: The LDS church is not the true church, nor is any church on this earth for that matter, organized religion is one of the banes of society and is just a way for an organization to control other people for whatever end.

 

 

.

My understanding is that RS, YM, and Primary are all viewed as equal roles.  Each is part of the ward council.  It is not a "progression" to move from YW to RS or a demotion to go from RS to Primary.  In fact, if people were truly given the option, I think most members (women and men) would consider Primary to be the highest group to be assigned to.

 

More to the point, there still exists in the church the notion that there is one presiding authority in any meeting.  That authority is generally the last speaker and has the responsibility to correct any prior speakers.  That is a primary reason why a member of the FP attends the Women's Meeting.  And speaks last.  His role is to correct anything the women say in error.  That's why it would be difficult to have only women leaders at the meeting.  Since it's a "women's meeting," either none or all of them would have equal claim to preside.  I guess the best work-around would be if the Prophet appointed one of them to be the presiding authority at the meeting. 

 

The extreme version of this is found in a Primary 11-year old class.  It is not uncommon for a boy to turn 12, be ordained a deacon, begin attending deacon's quorum third hour, but for the remainder of the calendar year continuing attending the primary class during the second hour.  Scripturally speaking, when that boy attends primary, he is the presiding authority over his teacher and even over the primary president.  Culturally speaking, no one adheres to this.  But it does give weight to the feeling some women express that they are viewed as lesser to children.  It's important to note that, when the church was initially organized, and the roles of deacons, teachers, etc. created, it was expected that only men would hold those positions, not boys.

 

Edit for clarity.

Don't confuse the highest group to be assigned to to the toughest one to be assigned to. I'm sure it's a lot easier to conduct a relief society meeting than a primary meeting with a bunch of little kids. Plus most the kids aren't even really listening, they're bored and just waiting to get home to enjoy the rest of their weekend. I remember as a kid I used to see women coming out the relief society room in tears. Because they're adults and were obviously listening. Yes technically the RF president and primary president are equal, but culturally, the RF president is the highest calling for a woman in her individual ward.

 

 

I forgot to quote but whoever said, "I'm still trying to figure out why anybody would want to go more meetings" hit it on the mark. I busted out laughing when I read that.

[cdowis]

Technically when the women that are "lucky or 'worthy' enough'" actually do get the priesthood when they go through the 2nd anointment ceremony in the temple and is ordained a goddess and priestess and given the keys of the priesthood.

 

 

 

Is this from personal knowledge, or something you heard on a youtube video.

[jaxenro]

I think the priesthood and church structure mirror another divinely ordered structure called the family unit. Aren't there enough troubles in society today with family structure? Society at large is working hard to displace the idea that fathers are an essential building block of family structure and to supplant the fathers role as head of the house, role model, provider, and protector with state institutions. This works to a plan but not Gods plan. Should we then work in Gods church to institute societies norms?

Somehow society has contrived to convince women raising children wasn't the equal of having a career. When was the last time one of you was sealed to the other people in your career, the other people you work with? Are they somehow more important than your own flesh and blood? Is there a higher church calling than motherhood? You speak of progression and authority, I would be willing to waned the prophet listened to his mother.

Is it true eternal progression that the members that try to dictate terms to God are looking for or temporal recognition? Eternal progression comes from service, obedience, humility, meekness, and love not honors and higher office.

[jaxenro]

No edit function?

 

I would be willing to wajer the prophet listened to his mother.

 

(Not that I gamble)

[Buzzard]

I don't like it, but that's the reality.  If priesthood were optional of men, if they could attend the temple, serve missions, and gain exaltation without it, I believe most men would decline the priesthood because the burdens of hometeaching, and the risk of being called as EQP or bishop, is simply greater than the blessing of baptizing or blessing your children.  Most men.  By our nature, we all (men and women) prefer to let others lead, at least when the ship is running fairly smoothly. 

 

Have you never heard a woman say, "I would never want the priesthood because I have enough to do already" or "I could never be the bishop"?  That's the sentiment I'm talking about.  For most members, personally holding the priesthood is a net-negative.  Their glad others use it.  But they don't personally want it.  Most current priesthood holders don't really value it.  That's why "duty" is always a part of the BINGO board for the priesthood session.  The word comes up over and over and over. 

Here is something to think about. Several of our fellow Christian denominations, notably the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists (except Southern B's), Community of Christ, and some Presbyterians do ordain women. Two things to note about those sects. First, most are now run or are evolving to being run by women. The high leadership is usually still mixed gender, but go into the churches on a Sunday and the women are running the show.  Second, they are all shrinking. Not just not growing as fast as other churches, but losing members, in some cases lots of members. 

I'm sure the reasons for their struggles are multi-faceted, but it seems to make at least some sense that when the women take over, at least some of the guys shrug their shoulders and go watch football or play golf. 

[Storm Rider]

I think the priesthood and church structure mirror another divinely ordered structure called the family unit. Aren't there enough troubles in society today with family structure? Society at large is working hard to displace the idea that fathers are an essential building block of family structure and to supplant the fathers role as head of the house, role model, provider, and protector with state institutions. This works to a plan but not Gods plan. Should we then work in Gods church to institute societies norms?

Somehow society has contrived to convince women raising children wasn't the equal of having a career. When was the last time one of you was sealed to the other people in your career, the other people you work with? Are they somehow more important than your own flesh and blood? Is there a higher church calling than motherhood? You speak of progression and authority, I would be willing to waned the prophet listened to his mother.

Is it true eternal progression that the members that try to dictate terms to God are looking for or temporal recognition? Eternal progression comes from service, obedience, humility, meekness, and love not honors and higher office.

 

Please let's not cloud the issue with absolute need to "get" whatever "they" have; we need it; we want it.  I am not so sure we would do anything with it, but the point is that telling us, "You cannot have it" means I must get it.  There is no real need other than satisfying my thirst for that which I am told I cannot have.  In today's culture we must placate the all-consuming thirst of self; I must be served, I must be satisfied. 

 

Never tell me, "I don't know" just give it to me and shut up.  No need for divine direction; no need for tradition; either have God tell me clearly, absolutely why or give it to me because I said so.  I must be compelled in all things; all my passions must be satiated or I cannot be happy.  "I" am one constant, all-consuming need for instant gratification.  There is not filling me; there is only the desire to get the next thing I don't have, satisfying the next whim that crosses my mind.  

 

and we wonder why our youth have problems? Take a long look in the mirror and ask how our society is not a reflection of our own souls. 

[Truth 101]

Deleted.  You need to read the board guidelines.

[jaxenro]

God teaches us by example and is immune to modern trends.

 

What if a women chooses to be called a father instead of a mother, or a man a mother instead of a father, should society just accept it? Before you call that absurd let me point ot he fact that society is doing just that. We can call a duck a horse but we still can't hitch it to a cart. We can call a woman a man, or a man a woman, we can even surgically alter their body, but we can't change their human nature or their soul.  

 

Does societies acceptance of homosexuality make it right? Is it somehow now moral to act in ways that for thousands of years were considered immoral? As society seeks to redefine the meaning of family and our roles within should we then accept it as moral?

 

Why did God give us families, and roles within those families, if not to teach us? This entire earth experience is to teach us and every part of that experience is by design. God is our Father in heaven, not our Mother. And if we have a Mother in heaven she is our Mother, not our Father. One of the tasks of life is to understand our Father in heavens nature, the charecter and content of God if you will, and one of the ways he teaches us this is by making us fathers and mothers ourselves so we can understand the term father.

 

I have no anger towards these women only sorrow. They seek to destroy what they pretend to want because they do not see the reason for anything beyond the acceptance and acclaim of society.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sweet, a troll amongst us.

[Senator]

Deleted

 

I bet you where just dying to get that all out. All of which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

Feel better?

[jaxenro]

 

But seriously, I'd love to see proof other than you saying so, that the church is true.

 

Why? I left the Church for over ten years, and removed my name from membership, yet I never showed the hostility you seem to display. Would proof convince you? What proof? What do you hope to gain by anger?

 

Life is a transient state, nothing physical we gain here is retained past the grave, so what is the point of seeking to denigrate others over material matters? Or institutions? And there is a point, why the Mormon church? Surely there are far worse in the world? How about Syria? I don't seem to recall president Monson ordering poisen gas attacks on his enemies. So the church doesn't give enough to feed the poor as you think they should? How much do you give? Is it my, or anyone elses busines? (Personally I think not). If I, or others, feel good paying tithing and think we accrue blessings from it why do you choose to denigrate it? Or is it jsut that all of us are so incapable of indepentant thought we need your wisdom and guidance?

[Truth 101]

Ya, I feel much better.

But it was on topic, is this thread not about women receiving the priesthood?

Did you even read my whole post? Or just dismiss it because you obviously don't agree? Because I did say, "All that aside this thread is about women and the priesthood."

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram: Go ahead, call me a troll for making logical points. Makes no difference to me.

[Truth 101]

My post may have been a tad abrasive but I would go as far as to say I was hostile. All I did was present facts. So sue me.

 

And yes I would say it is every members business where their tithing money goes. But that is just my opinion.

[Senator]

Ya, I feel much better.

 

 

Good! Then might we expect a little more cordiality?

[Truth 101]

errr that was WOULDN'T go as far. I don't think this forum has an edit function. I hate having to make multiple posts.

[Truth 101]

Sure I'll be as cordial as I can be. But I think a member or ANY religion should be prepared to have his/her faith challenged.

 

One good thing (and believe me I don't think it's the only good thing, the church has many good qualities) about the church is it's emphasis on family. LDS families are probably some of the most tight knit healthy families in the entire world. I won't deny that.

[Buckeye]

Here is something to think about. Several of our fellow Christian denominations, notably the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists (except Southern B's), Community of Christ, and some Presbyterians do ordain women. Two things to note about those sects. First, most are now run or are evolving to being run by women. The high leadership is usually still mixed gender, but go into the churches on a Sunday and the women are running the show.  Second, they are all shrinking. Not just not growing as fast as other churches, but losing members, in some cases lots of members. 

I'm sure the reasons for their struggles are multi-faceted, but it seems to make at least some sense that when the women take over, at least some of the guys shrug their shoulders and go watch football or play golf. 

 

Those are fine points to consider.  But I prefer to look at the behavior of mormons as better indicators of what mormons will do.  Those other congregations do not have the same lay clergy we do (I'm not sure of the CoC).  When looking at our lay clergy, we see that mormon men still say prayers, go on missions, get education, read scriptures, attend seminary, attend the temple, pay tithing, serve on scouting committees, help with social activities, and do many other things even though women are allowed to do the same.  So why do we think priesthood would be any different?  I have yet to hear a YM say, "well, now that women are serving missions at rates approaching men, I no longer have a desire to serve." 

 

Additionally, what is the basis for denying blessings to someone based on the actions of others?  Are you saying that a valiant mormon woman should be denied the ability to baptize her child or stand in the circle or a blessing because men in another faith are failing to pitch in?  Talk about Eve being punished for Adam's transgression.

[jaxenro]

And yes I would say it is every members business where their tithing money goes. But that is just my opinion.

 

I would state that it is each individuals business to spend, or give, their own money as they see fit to whatever cause they choose to support or oppose. Yes not all tithing is spent in ways you may support but then again neither are you be appointed to spend it. If you were I would probably not choose to give.

 

Assume the rest of us have the intelligence to make decisions in our lives based on our own experiences and proceed from that point. You claim to be only pointing out "truths" yet would you want someone coming into your home and pointing out to you "truths" about how you live your life to you based on their life experiences? As Christ says it is easier to see the mote in your neighbors eye than the beam in your own. I don't know if you do have beams I am too busy getting the motes out of mine own

[jaxenro]

Additionally, what is the basis for denying blessings to someone based on the actions of others?  Are you saying that a valiant mormon woman should be denied the ability to baptize her child or stand in the circle or a blessing because men in another faith are failing to pitch in?  Talk about Eve being punished for Adam's transgression.

 

I think the point is that each gender has roles and that no one is being denied any blessing they are entitled to. If the prophet states women are not to hold the preisthood what blessings to you see accruing from using temporal and sociatal pressure to change that decision?

 

If the preisthood structure comes from God and belssings come from God what blessings will you get by forcing God to accede to your wishes?

[Senator]

Sure I'll be as cordial as I can be.

Great. But be aware that "as I can be" may not be enough.  

 

But I think a member or ANY religion should be prepared to have his/her faith challenged.

Indeed.

That is why we are admonished to "be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you".

Please be aware that you have brought nothing new to the table. These "facts" as you call then, that you have listed, have all been well discussed on this forum. Perhaps you would do well to first do a little reading and research on past threads before launching your own.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Senator

[bluebell]

Truth-

 

Thread-jacking (the practice of taking over a thread and/or making it about a topic that is different from the one in the original post (OP) can be a ban-able offense (banned from the thread) so tread lightly here.  You have to stay on topic.  If there is something else you would like to discuss you have to wait until you have 25 posts and are allowed to start your own threads.

 

Using the shot gun approach to posting (spraying a thread with posts that contain as much of your opinions on as many different topics as you can in an attempt to see what draws blood) never works.  It's been done to death, and it's hard to take any poster who does it seriously.

 

[pogi]

Ya, I feel much better.

But it was on topic, is this thread not about women receiving the priesthood?

Did you even read my whole post? Or just dismiss it because you obviously don't agree? Because I did say, "All that aside this thread is about women and the priesthood."

 

Yes, and the topic of the Bible is grapes because it mentions grapes in there somewhere. 

[jaxenro]

I admit to being out of the Church for a while so maybe I am missing something but as I understand families are considered a foundational building block developed by God for man? Within the family each gender, father and mother, has defined roles that are ordained and explained by God in the scriptures. I can post a string of them if necessary but fathers are to lead their households, with love, responsibility, humility, charity, and in obedience to God. What does leadership mean? In my own understanding it is to serve those that follow that leadership. In an LDS household, to my understanding, the father and husband is the priesthood leader in the home. Is this true?

 

To those married women here that want the priesthood I would like to ask do they also want to assume their husbands role in giving fathers blessings?

 

In teaching their sons to be good fathers, husbands, and leaders themselves?

 

Do they want leadership of the home?

 

Do they, as today's society does, seek to disenfranchise their husbands roles?

 

To marginalize their husbands?

 

How do they then teach the parts of the Bible that describe, and ascribe, these family roles after they have ursurped their husbands role, marginalized him in the eyes of their children, to those same children?

 

If ordained as Bishops do they then assume spiritual leadership in the home as well as the ward?

 

Modern society, in tune with all totalitarian regimes throughout history, seeks to marginalize, demorialize, and ultimitely destroy the family unit as the place where moral values are taught and children are raised. It slowly chips away at the edifices, redifing marriage until it has no meaning, blurring gender roles, preaching gratification over service to others.

 

I know you just say you want the same blessings men supposedly get from holding the preisthood or to be allowed to progress as men do but I ask you is a Deacon passing sacrament any more important in Gods eyes than a Bishop, or any more loved? Or are all equally important in Gods eyes and equally loved? Is a mother any lessed blessed than a father?

 

If you seek only the acclaim of mankind will you have reason to be surprised if, in the end, all you acheive are the rewards man, and not God, offers?