Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Stone holm]

No, it was needed to give men of black African descent the priesthood.But in so doing, it established a clear scriptural / canonical / doctrinal limitation on the priesthood. D&C 84 and various other passages took gender for granted, but OD-2 made specific the nexus between gender and holding the priesthood. So it's a matter of eisegesis, but not exegesis? I'm not sure that's a good recipe for discerning doctrine. So do I. But another rule of thumb is to sustain the Brethren. That has to include certain components in order to be workable. We need to assume the Brethren are in communion with God (absent evidence to the contrary). We need to recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about things, including important things. We need to allow the Brethren deference on debatable issues. We need to express concerns and attempt to affect positive change through charity, patience, humility, the Spirit. I don't think the OW group, with their public protests, aligning with excommunicated apostates, etc. is doing these things. I agree. The scriptures require some exegesis. So the folks who are taking a literalist approach (saying that ordaining women to the priesthood should happen unless it is specifically prohibited in scripture) should reconsider their position. I was referring to the ordination of women in the LDS Church. In that context, I think agitation for female ordination is something of a novelty. Were there instances of 19th-century LDS women making public demands for the priesthood? If so, I would appreciate a reference or two. I'm not inclined to lay all social ills at the feet of the Church.Thanks,-Smac

Not all that clear. But, it is somewhat unclear where the Church will eventually go with this, except it is clear that the current exclusion of women from the hierarchy of the Church is non sustainable in the long run. How that Gordions knot gets cut and how is what's not clear. It may not involve ordaining to the MP, or it might. As Yoda says, the future is uncertain.

[Kenngo1969]

Not all that clear. But, it is somewhat unclear where the Church will eventually go with this, except it is clear that the current exclusion of women from the hierarchy of the Church is non sustainable in the long run. How that Gordions knot gets cut and how is what's not clear. It may not involve ordaining to the MP, or it might. As Yoda says, the future is uncertain.

What exclusion?  In primary presidencies, relief society presidencies, young women presidencies, as teachers in any of the auxiliaries?  (Again, I'll hasten to add that if the Lord wills that His Daughters receive the Priesthood, who am I to stand in the way of that?  But if-and-when that happens, it will happen precisely because it's the Lord's will and on the Lord's timing, not because Ordain Women or anyone else "agitated" for it.)

 

P.S.: And if the extension of the Priesthood to all worthy males is your model for the change you believe is inevitable, there was always a contingent of leadership in The Church of Jesus Christ that posited that those who were excluded from it on the basis of their race or color someday would receive it.  Where is that contingent among the Brethren with respect to extending the Priesthood to women?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

P.S.: And if the extension of the Priesthood to all worthy males is your model for the change you believe is inevitable, there was always a contingent of leadership in The Church of Jesus Christ that posited that those who were excluded from it on the basis of their race or color someday would receive it.  Where is that contingent among the Brethren with respect to extending the Priesthood to women?

 

The "someday" prophecy of when men of African descent would receive the priesthood was the millenium.  That prophecy turned out to be incorrect.

 

Women already receive the priesthood in the temple, they just don't exercise it in mortality.

 

So in the same way that blacks received the priesthood "early" so could women.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Or maybe the Lord just has to wait for us to be past our mortal prejudices... those trappings of the natural man.

 

And yes, women are excluded from church leadership... read the handbook.  Priesthood approval is required for much of what the RS, YW, and Primary auxiliaries do.  But a lot will depend on your local bishop or stake president.

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you point to the canonical revelation that states that for revelation to be valid it must "exist canonically"?

 

 

The answer is no,...

 

 

Well, then my reasoning stands: If there is no canonical scriptural passage that says a revelation must be canonized for it to be valid, you have no reasonable basis to insist that others show you a canonical scriptural passage to the effect that women are not to be ordained to the priesthood. Your CFR demand on that point is moot, just as I said.

 

... but I didn't claim that there was.

 

Your apparent assumption was that there must be. Otherwise, why insist through a CFR that others show you canonized scripture that says women are not to be ordained to the priesthood? (See above.)

 

However it is often reasoned that the 1886 revelation on polygamy was invalid because it was never canonized.

 

The Church rejects that purported revelation not because it was never canonized but because it is not regarded as authentic.

 

Can you point to any claimed revelation on this matter, canonical or otherwise?

 

The totality of the scriptural record on priesthood, much of which has already been cited here, never so much as hints that women are to be ordained to the priesthood, be it in the past, now or in the future.

 

It is you who is challenging conventional understanding on this point; ergo, you bear the burden of proof.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Doctrine and Covenants 68:4

 

Contrary to your implied assumption, this states that what a prophet says when moved upon by the Holy Ghost carries the imprimatur of scripture and the will, mind, word and voice of the Lord. It doesn't say it has to be canonized. It doesn't even say it has to be written down.

 

 

I responded in my previous post (see above). But note the caveat: "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost." I agree with that scripture completely. 

I cited that scripture to refute your assumption that for a revelation to be valid it must be part of the scriptural canon, an assumption that was driving your demand that others show you where canonized scripture says women are not to receive the priesthood.

 

If you agree completely with the scripture I cited, then you must understand that such an assumption is erroneous.

 

To reiterate: For a purported revelation to be valid, it has to have been uttered by one who was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to utter it. There is no requirement that it be canonized or even that it be written down.

 

Since it is the role of the prophets and apostles to receive inspiration to govern the entire Church,  and since no high-ranking Church leader has ever even hinted that women may one day hold the priesthood, the reasonable assumption is that their understanding on this point is divinely inspired. It is thus not necessary for there to have been a canonized revelation explicitly stating that only men are to hold the priesthood.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The "someday" prophecy of when men of African descent would receive the priesthood was the millenium.  That prophecy turned out to be incorrect.

 

Was there an authoritative prophecy that explicitly stated the change would happen during the millennium? My understanding (and I was alive and aware and a Church member in good standing during the pre-1978 time period) was that it would happen someday but no one could definitively state when. I don't recall it being widely taught that anyone knew when it would happen.

 

Perhaps some were giving their opinion that it would happen during the millennium (there were a number of varying opinions expressed on the subject), but I don't recall such opinion being couched as a prophecy.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Or maybe the Lord just has to wait for us to be past our mortal prejudices... those trappings of the natural man.

 

My personal opinion is that the prophets and apostles have progressed further along the path of putting off the natural man than have those who are agitating for them to change doctrine and consistent practice that has been in place through many gospel dispensations extending back to Adam.

[why me]

Exactly, which is why one of the three legs of the Catholic Church is Sacred Tradition, which is what has been passed down (to hand on is the root of the word tradition).  The other two legs are Scripture and the Magesterium (the Pope and Bishops).

 

There is definitely a lot of Tradition concerning Mary.  Whether or not you believe it, of course, is somewhat a matter of faith

But I had a different point. For some reason, the male writers of the new testament chose to ignore the women who were closest to christ. Why? The two mary's were forgotten by them. They played no role after the death of christ. Why were they ignored? Or why were they omitted from the texts?

[Tacenda]

What exclusion? In primary presidencies, relief society presidencies, young women presidencies, as teachers in any of the auxiliaries? (Again, I'll hasten to add that if the Lord wills that His Daughters receive the Priesthood, who am I to stand in the way of that? But if-and-when that happens, it will happen precisely because it's the Lord's will and on the Lord's timing, not because Ordain Women or anyone else "agitated" for it.)

P.S.: And if the extension of the Priesthood to all worthy males is your model for the change you believe is inevitable, there was always a contingent of leadership in The Church of Jesus Christ that posited that those who were excluded from it on the basis of their race or color someday would receive it. Where is that contingent among the Brethren with respect to extending the Priesthood to women?

I'm probably guilty for bringing in the word agitate or agitating. If they are going by President Hinckley, they are merely agitating for the prophet to take it to the Lord in prayer. Just that, IMO.

[Tacenda]

Dbl

Edited March 19, 2014 by Tacenda

[why me]

I'm probably guilty for bringing in the word agitate or agitating. If they are going by President Hinckley, they are merely agitating for the prophet to take it to the Lord in prayer. Just that, IMO.

I think that it was shown to you that you may have misunderstood the quotation by Hinckley. One does not agitate on behalf of the prophet or agitate to the lord. And this is the problem with the OW movement and why I may question their motives. There are better ways to get a point across than by inferring with people who only wish to attend a meeting in peace.

[Stone holm]

What exclusion?  In primary presidencies, relief society presidencies, young women presidencies, as teachers in any of the auxiliaries?  (Again, I'll hasten to add that if the Lord wills that His Daughters receive the Priesthood, who am I to stand in the way of that?  But if-and-when that happens, it will happen precisely because it's the Lord's will and on the Lord's timing, not because Ordain Women or anyone else "agitated" for it.)

 

P.S.: And if the extension of the Priesthood to all worthy males is your model for the change you believe is inevitable, there was always a contingent of leadership in The Church of Jesus Christ that posited that those who were excluded from it on the basis of their race or color someday would receive it.  Where is that contingent among the Brethren with respect to extending the Priesthood to women?

First paragraph of this reply is self refuting. As to the PS, no it is not. I am not sure how the Church will resolve the issue as there are many possible paths. I think only one thing is clear, the present position is not sustainable in the long run. There has already been considerable change. When I was a Bishop, the Church actually discouraged YW from missions, that is clearly not the case now.

[Stone holm]

I think that it was shown to you that you may have misunderstood the quotation by Hinckley. One does not agitate on behalf of the prophet or agitate to the lord. And this is the problem with the OW movement and why I may question their motives. There are better ways to get a point across than by inferring with people who only wish to attend a meeting in peace.

Really? Why was Jacob's name changed? Why did Abraham negotiate with the messengers over Sodom's fate?

[Kenngo1969]

First paragraph of this reply is self refuting. ...

Well, alrighty then!  Don't mind me!  I'm too busy mumbling to myself and drooling all over myself!

 

When I was a Bishop, the Church actually discouraged YW from missions, that is clearly not the case now. 

 

Hmmm.  OK.  Were you ever given any letters to read over the pulpit to that effect, or do you recall attending any Priesthood/Leadership meetings in which one of the Brethren made such a pronouncement?  It may be true that they were not actively encouraged, but that's a far cry from saying they were "actually discouraged."

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Dbl

Poor Tacenda!  You only get so many of those a day!

[why me]

Really? Why was Jacob's name changed? Why did Abraham negotiate with the messengers over Sodom's fate?

Through agitation? Or through prayer? Or did they go to the temple and agitate there?

[Kenngo1969]

Really? Why was Jacob's name changed? Why did Abraham negotiate with the messengers over Sodom's fate?

Speaking of self-refuting ... Can you say non sequitur?

[Kenngo1969]

The "someday" prophecy of when men of African descent would receive the priesthood was the millenium.  That prophecy turned out to be incorrect.

 

 

I know there was speculation on the subject by various individual Brethren, but they did not speak with one voice on the subject when offering that timetable.  If they had, they would have done so in some sort of official pronouncement.  True, the 1949 First Presidency letter on the subject referenced a statement of President Brigham Young to that effect.  However, the 1969 letter which superseded it only references a statement from President David O. McKay that it would happen "sometime in God's eternal plan."

 

Women already receive the priesthood in the temple, they just don't exercise it in mortality.

 

Sure they do.  In the temple.  (Just something to think about.  By the way, love the implication that only those who are agitating for women to receive the Priesthood in the same way that men receive it are the only ones who have "[thought] about it"! )

Edited March 19, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Bikeemikey]

I cited that scripture to refute your assumption that for a revelation to be valid it must be part of the scriptural canon, an assumption that was driving your demand that others show you where canonized scripture says women are not to receive the priesthood.

 

If you agree completely with the scripture I cited, then you must understand that such an assumption is erroneous.

 

To reiterate: For a purported revelation to be valid, it has to have been uttered by one who was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to utter it. There is no requirement that it be canonized or even that it be written down.

 

Since it is the role of the prophets and apostles to receive inspiration to govern the entire Church,  and since no high-ranking Church leader has ever even hinted that women may one day hold the priesthood, the reasonable assumption is that their understanding on this point is divinely inspired. It is thus not necessary for there to have been a canonized revelation explicitly stating that only men are to hold the priesthood.

 

I fully agree with you statements on this.

 

I would simply add that the the nature of revelation allows that this current position may change. That is the great thing about revelation... nothing is ever off the table.

[Bikeemikey]

But I had a different point. For some reason, the male writers of the new testament chose to ignore the women who were closest to christ. Why? The two mary's were forgotten by them. They played no role after the death of christ. Why were they ignored? Or why were they omitted from the texts?

 

For the same reason women in general were ignored in that time period. If you ask that question in the context of the culture of the time it is pretty clear.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm probably guilty for bringing in the word agitate or agitating. If they are going by President Hinckley, they are merely agitating for the prophet to take it to the Lord in prayer. Just that, IMO.

Fine.  If President Thomas S. Monson said that the Brethren had made the matter a subject of prayer, and if their answer was that the status quo should be maintained, do you think that would satisfy Ordain Women and all of those who are in agreement with that organization?  I doubt it.

[Bikeemikey]

I think that it was shown to you that you may have misunderstood the quotation by Hinckley. One does not agitate on behalf of the prophet or agitate to the lord. And this is the problem with the OW movement and why I may question their motives. There are better ways to get a point across than by inferring with people who only wish to attend a meeting in peace.

 

Last time someone "inferred" at me I became very distraught.

 

These people feel strongly enough about what they are doing to act.

 

Our church can not ignore the pending discussion regarding women in the church, the divine feminine, equality in leadership, priesthood and gender, etc etc. These conversations are coming with or with out the OW movement.

 

It is part of the context and time frame that the church finds itself in.

 

It is part of the church being larger outside the US than it is in the US. 

 

It is about a shifting base of members that want to make sure that there gospel experience is not being mediated by a political ideology that they do not agree with.

 

It's about all sorts of different things.

 

The beginning of that conversation is have a debate about whether there should be a conversation. Its about having the debate about what the boundaries of that conversation are.

 

Presently the OW folks want to engage in debate about the role of women specifically related to priesthood and leadership authority. However, most of the bandwidth is dominated not by their agenda but by the debate about wether we should even talk about their agenda.

 

The church will look different related to gender issues in the next 20-30 years. That is guaranteed. The OW folks will likely not play a central role in shaping the change (directly) but they will have been responsible for bringing the issue to the front and center for a lot of members and church leadership.

 

I don't much support their agenda, I don't much like there approach, but I support their right to do what they do, both religiously and politically. I also appreciate that they are bringing this conversation front and center. What disappoints me is that more people are concerned about arguing their right to say what they are saying in the manner they are saying it than actually engaging in the substance of the discussion. 

[jaxenro]

Fine. If President Thomas S. Monson said that the Brethren had made the matter a subject of prayer, and if their answer was that the status quo should be maintained, do you think that would satisfy Ordain Women and all of those who are in agreement with that organization? I doubt it.

Although I don't particularly favor OW's tactics I do think it is fair for a group of members to be allowed to ask the Prophet to ask questions of the Lord for us. Yet also I think there would need to be a mechanism in place so this didn't become burdensome.

As the Church grows it gets harder and harder to simply ask the Prophet and he gets more insulated from the members. But then again I assume the GA's are reporting back to him things from the different areas that surface?

[Bikeemikey]

Fine.  If President Thomas S. Monson said that the Brethren had made the matter a subject of prayer, and if their answer was that the status quo should be maintained, do you think that would satisfy Ordain Women and all of those who are in agreement with that organization?  I doubt it.

 

But it didn't satisfy the church community who were concerned about black ordination either. Mckay said that he prayed and the blacks could not have the priesthood. 

 

People kept engaging the discussion until eventually the revelation change.

 

Does that undermine the revelation. Not at all. But it also doesn't mean we should look down or really be upset with people who are fomenting for change within the church even after a prophet has said, "ive prayed about it and god has not change his mind".

 

I really fail to see what damage the OW can do to the church. They can't force revelation. They can't force god. They can impact public opinion, but really, who cares about that. Are we saying we think the OW movement should stop because they may make the public not like mormons?

 

Now I don't think that the black ordination and womens ordination are the same issue from a doctrinal context, as has already been pointed out by many. However, the process of the leadership and general church coming to terms with the revelatory process of change will be the same for new revelation as it was for black ordination.

 

The process of revelation that changed the black ordination issue was really a twenty year process that culminated in a new revelation. Revelation is a process. That is what black ordination demonstrated. Is this respect black ordination can serve as a model of modern day revelation directing change in the church.

 

The OW movement is a legitimate voice in that process. That does not mean they will get what they want. But we can be assured that their question will solicit revelation, and that revelation that states the status quo is unchanged does not require the immediate disbanding of their efforts.

[Kenngo1969]

Although I don't particularly favor OW's tactics I do think it is fair for a group of members to be allowed to ask the Prophet to ask questions of the Lord for us. Yet also I think there would need to be a mechanism in place so this didn't become burdensome.

As the Church grows it gets harder and harder to simply ask the Prophet and he gets more insulated from the members. But then again I assume the GA's are reporting back to him things from the different areas that surface?

Again, what makes you think that the Brethren haven't made the subject a matter of prayer?  I'm quite certain that the individual Brethren who have addressed the subject, however briefly, in General Conference have done so.  Ordain Women and those who sympathize with it simply don't like the answers they've gotten.