Church Says Aims Of 'ordain Women' Detract From Dialogue

[rockpond]

I agree. I've yet to see anyone argue that but there could be someone out there who has.

Could be. Though given that the broadcast was already available to all in print form, not much, if anything, of substance has actually been gained by that in regards to gender issues.

It's kind of a concession without any actual concessions.

I viewed it as the Brethren saying: We hear you. We can't give you what you are asking for, but we can give this for whatever it's worth.

[Kenngo1969]

You left out 3) Sometimes we attribute things to the Lord even when we have no evidence that they came from Him.

And thus, you commit the fallacy illustrated by the old saying that "[Alleged] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  

[bluebell]

I viewed it as the Brethren saying: We hear you. We can't give you what you are asking for, but we can give this for whatever it's worth.

 

I don't have a problem with the idea that they did it for that reason.

[rockpond]

And thus, you commit the fallacy illustrated by the old saying that "[Alleged] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Read my statement carefully -- I have committed no such fallacy.

Would you say it's appropriate to attribute divine authorship to something when we have no evidence that it came from God?

[Kenngo1969]

Read my statement carefully -- I have committed no such fallacy.

Would you say it's appropriate to attribute divine authorship to something when we have no evidence that it came from God?

Sigh.  If you want to live in a world in which you posit that there are a certain number of choices as reasons underlying something when that scenario doesn't exhaust the possibilities, go right ahead.  (In this case, you posit that since there is "no evidence" that something came from God it must not have, but again, that doesn't exhaust the possibilities).  You think you've backed me into a corner.  Congratulations.  But I'm not stepping into that (in this case, binary) world with you.  Thanks.

[frank_jessop]

You left out 3) Sometimes we attribute things to the Lord even when we have no evidence that they came from Him.

And sometimes we deny the Lord when the evidence is that whatever it is came from Him. (What was once Doctrine and the will of the Lord, is now according to many disavowed.)

[Calm]

 I completely agree with the sentiment that OW's focus on ordination for women as the only acceptable outcome ... detracts rather than adds to the cause (for lack of a better term).

 

I have seen quite a few that have labeled any discussion about change for women in anyway as being unfaithful (and thus they refuse to discuss in any meaningful way but to condemn) because they attach that position to the absolute one of Priesthood ordination…most likely because it is currently the most visible one due to media.

 

It has been very, very frustrating in a couple of cases.  Spend hours on attempting to create a workable position of agreement among friends only to have it completely shutdown as unacceptable when it doesn't even conflict with any of the Church's current statements.

[Calm]

please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject, but is there a "Mormon Feminist Movement"; that has a dedicated structure, mission statement, platform, membership? Such that one LDS woman can say to another LDS woman "You are not a Mormon Feminist, but I am and here is my membership card to prove it." If not, then well, no one really has the right to define what the "Mormon Feminist Movement" is and isn't.

Ask Kate Kelly.  She was the one who used the term "so-called feminists", IIRC.

[rockpond]

Sigh. If you want to live in a world in which you posit that there are a certain number of choices as reasons underlying something when that scenario doesn't exhaust the possibilities, go right ahead. (In this case, you posit that since there is "no evidence" that something came from God it must not have, but again, that doesn't exhaust the possibilities). You think you've backed me into a corner. Congratulations. But I'm not stepping into that (in this case, binary) world with you. Thanks.

That's fine, you are not required to dialogue with me. You can make up excuses as to why it is an unfair question because the answer doesn't support your cause. But know that my point (the #3 addition to your list) stands uncontested.

[rockpond]

And sometimes we deny the Lord when the evidence is that whatever it is came from Him. (What was once Doctrine and the will of the Lord, is now according to many disavowed.)

If you are referring to the reasons given for the temple & priesthood ban, then your parenthetical reference is correct. What had been declared doctrine and the Lord's will has now been disavowed by the same institutional authority.

[Nofear]

I have seen quite a few that have labeled any discussion about change for women in anyway as being unfaithful (and thus they refuse to discuss in any meaningful way but to condemn) because they attach that position to the absolute one of Priesthood ordination…most likely because it is currently the most visible one due to media.

 

It has been very, very frustrating in a couple of cases.  Spend hours on attempting to create a workable position of agreement among friends only to have it completely shutdown as unacceptable when it doesn't even conflict with any of the Church's current statements.

 

Well put. The Ordain Women movement is a distraction to real need for (better implementation of current) policy changes that would benefit the administration of the Church.

[Gray]

For me, the difference is that when it comes to civil justice, that is something that people get to decided on. In other words, people come together and decide what 'fair' looks like and then work toward that end.

 

 

IMO, that's how revelation works. That's how humanity awakens to morality.

 

 

 

In theological issues though, God is the one who decides what is 'fair' and whether anyone else agrees with Him or not is irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think that's how God works at all. 

 

 

 

 

A group of people can come together and say 'this church practice is not fair or equal as we define that term'. However, I don't believe that a group of people can come together and say 'this church practice isn't fair or equal as we define it and therefore God agrees with us because our definition is the eternal definition'.

 

While i don't believe that women being able to have babies is the equivalent of men being ordained to the priesthood, I think it does illustrate how God deals with each gender and the idea of equal opportunities for equal blessings.

Being able to conceive, carry, and birth a child is an experience that comes with HUGE, practically indescribable, blessings. It is not at all the same as fatherhood. And God is obviously fine with that.

He is obviously completely fine with giving women blessings and experiences in mortality that men (and even some women) will never ever be able to experience or gain access to. He has purposefully organized mortality so that women will have different responsibilities and different blessings than men when it comes to this topic, and we (by 'we' i mean those of us who believe that God directed the way that life is created on this earth, and that how babies come to this world is His design) all accept that without decrying how unfair it all is that a man will never get to experience the marvels of being pregnant.

Given that, I don't know how anyone can claim that God could never condone any organization that allowed men specific responsibilities (and therefore blessings) that women are not allowed to have.

Again, I'm not using this as an example of why women can't ever be ordained to the priesthood. I'm using it to show that we have examples in our lives right now where God treats the sexes very differently, and we know it is His will that it be that way.  Therefore, there is precedent, based on the way He has handled men/women issues in another situation, to support the belief that God condones women not being ordained while men are.

 

I think if we look to the natural world for lessons in morality, we'll come to all the wrong conclusions. Nature is neither fair nor just, but that does not mean that we as rational actors cannot be more just than whatever we happen to find in nature. 

[bluebell]

IMO, that's how revelation works. That's how humanity awakens to morality.

 

 

I don't think that's how God works at all.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

I think if we look to the natural world for lessons in morality, we'll come to all the wrong conclusions. Nature is neither fair nor just, but that does not mean that we as rational actors cannot be more just than whatever we happen to find in nature.

 

 

I'm not talking about looking to the natural world to find morality.  I'm talking about looking to one very specific God-created and God-orchestrated aspect of mortality to help us understand how God views the roles, responsibilities, and blessings associated with being a man or a woman.

 

Do you disagree that God set mortality up specifically and intentionally so that women have babies and men don't?   Or do you believe that God doesn't care and had no involvement whatsoever in how mortal life is created?

 

If it is the second option, then i can understand why the creation process would mean nothing to you in regards to what it could teach us about how God works with His sons and daughters.

[Kenngo1969]

That's fine, you are not required to dialogue with me. You can make up excuses as to why it is an unfair question because the answer doesn't support your cause. But know that my point (the #3 addition to your list) stands uncontested.

Have fun living in that binary, two-dimensional world of yours!  (Actually, I think it would be kinda cool to be flat: I wouldn't have to worry if any vehicles were to run me over as I cross the street since I'm already flat as a pancake!  I could simply pop right back up and keep on keepin' on! )

 

P.S.: And since you're so concerned about third/other options that aren't being discussed, how about, in addition to (1) a particular policy or purported doctrine was/is inspired of God; and (2) a particular policy or purported doctrine was/is not inspired of God, (3) we don't know the reasons that a particular policy or purported doctrine was/is inspired of God?

 

My point, in addition to those on your list, stands uncontested!  (See how easy that was?  Or are you the only one who can "play that game" (my phrase)?)

[rockpond]

Have fun living in that binary, two-dimensional world of yours!  (Actually, I think it would be kinda cool to be flat: I wouldn't have to worry if any vehicles were to run me over as I cross the street since I'm already flat as a pancake!  I could simply pop right back up and keep on keepin' on! )

 

P.S.: And since you're so concerned about third/other options that aren't being discussed, how about, in addition to (1) a particular policy or purported doctrine was/is inspired of God; and (2) a particular policy or purported doctrine was/is not inspired of God, (3) we don't know the reasons that a particular policy or purported doctrine was/is inspired of God?

 

My point, in addition to those on your list, stands uncontested!  (See how easy that was?  Or are you the only one who can "play that game" (my phrase)?)

 

If you are going to continue claiming that my thinking is binary, maybe you'd care to explain what exactly was binary about my question that you declined to answer:  "Would you say it's appropriate to attribute divine authorship to something when we have no evidence that it came from God?"

 

I didn't think that adding to your list of lessons from church history would create such an issue with you. The problem with your #3 above is that it makes an assumption that the policy/doctrine was inspired of God when we have no such evidence.  So the first part is correct... we don't know the reasons.  But the second part of your #3 statement makes a leap that is unsupported.  And that brings us back to my question that I repeated here again in this post.

[cdowis]

IMO, that's how revelation works. That's how humanity awakens to morality.

 

 

I don't think that's how God works at all. 

 

 

I believe that the LDS church is lead by a living prophet and revelation.  Obviously you disagree, and we respect your right to those views.

 

"I don't think that's how God works at all. "

May I suggest that it would be a simple thing to find a church who ordains women to the priesthood  -- you might check out the Community of Christ, for example.  They are very responsive and sensitive to social issues.

[Gray]

I believe that the LDS church is lead by a living prophet and revelation.  Obviously you disagree, and we respect your right to those views.

 

"I don't think that's how God works at all. "

May I suggest that it would be a simple thing to find a church who ordains women to the priesthood  -- you might check out the Community of Christ, for example.  They are very responsive and sensitive to social issues.

 

I don't disagree that the church is lead by a living prophet. I just disagree about the nature of revelation.

 

 

 

May I suggest that it would be a simple thing to find a church who ordains women to the priesthood  -- you might check out the Community of Christ, for example.  They are very responsive and sensitive to social issues.

 

On the other hand, President Uchtdorf invited those with different viewpoints to "come, join with us!"

[Gray]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

 

I'm not talking about looking to the natural world to find morality.  I'm talking about looking to one very specific God-created and God-orchestrated aspect of mortality to help us understand how God views the roles, responsibilities, and blessings associated with being a man or a woman.

 

Do you disagree that God set mortality up specifically and intentionally so that women have babies and men don't?   Or do you believe that God doesn't care and had no involvement whatsoever in how mortal life is created?

 

If it is the second option, then i can understand why the creation process would mean nothing to you in regards to what it could teach us about how God works with His sons and daughters.

 

Re: intentionality of human biology. No, I don't think our biology is indicative of anything other than evolutionary pathways to propagating the species. In many species there is the male/female dichotomy. In many genes are propagated in other ways.  I'm not opposed to finding moral lessons in what we see around us, but I don't see women having babies as indicative that only men should have the priesthood, or that there are any one size-fits-all roles for men or women. We're individuals first, each with different strengths and weaknesses. 

 

We do come at this from different perspectives, but I respect your views, even while disagreeing.