Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Gray]

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.

 

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.)

 

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

 

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.

 

Thinking about it further, the scriptural principle of common consent would seem to apply - and given the Biblical history of women's ordination, I think a real revelation would be needed (from a legalistic perspective) to legitimately overturn what was already given to women. And again, the only revelations that are specifically voted on seem to be the ones that end up canonized.

 

Regarding the revelation on polygamy, a photo of the original exists, in the prophet's handwriting.

 

Since you think that extra-canonical revelation is kosher, can you point to one banning women from the priesthood?

 

Caveat: this is for argument's sake on my part, as I don't view the legalistic paradigm under which we're arguing as spiritually valuable. 

Edited March 20, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

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.

 

The clause about "when moved on by the Holy Ghost" is very subjective though. Maybe the Holy Ghost only ratifies statements already canonized? It's too vague to really support any kind of consistent way to determine what is "official" revelation. It seems to be a moving target, but at least canonization would be a consistent standard. IS it the standard? There probably isn't one. 

Edited March 20, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

I have never heard this term applied to the LDS church.  Can you explain what you mean?

 

I have only ever heard this used by protestant churches to explain why they don't need a line of authority in order to use the priesthood.  As i understand it, it is one of their core doctrines and illustrates their separation from Catholics.

 

I've often heard that term used (from Peter) to describe our lay clergy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thinking about it further, the scriptural principle of common consent would seem to apply - and given the Biblical history of women's ordination, ...

You've not established such a history, and I don't accept your pretense that you have.

 

Regarding the revelation on polygamy, a photo of the original exists, in the prophet's handwriting.

 

So say the fundamentalists.

 

This is from a footnote at the link I gave you:

 

In an “Official Statement” from the First Presidency of the LDS Church, signed by Heber J. Grant, A.W. Ivins and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., it states: “It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this organization (Fundamentalists). As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such a revelation; the archives contain no record of any such a revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such a revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such a revelation exists.”

 

 

 

Since you think that extra-canonical revelation is kosher, can you point to one banning women from the priesthood?

 

I have already responded to this.

 

 

Caveat: this is for argument's sake on my part, as I don't view the legalistic paradigm under which we're arguing as spiritually valuable.

 

Just one more reason to view your question as moot.

[Gray]

I have never heard this term applied to the LDS church.  Can you explain what you mean?

 

I have only ever heard this used by protestant churches to explain why they don't need a line of authority in order to use the priesthood.  As i understand it, it is one of their core doctrines and illustrates their separation from Catholics.

 

The KJV isn't the best translation. There are more accurate translations available today that use older source material

[Gray]

But completely inconsistent with His actions in mortal life and teachings regarding the priesthood, both in mortality and after.

 

We know very little about his actions in mortal life. 

[Gray]

This has never been about worthiness or capability.  It has always been about eternally defined roles and whether women holding ecclesiastical priesthood is part of the female role.  OW says it is (or should be).  Others say it isn't (and can't be).  Scripture & revelation don't specify except that there is no record of any women holding ecclesiastical priesthood throughout history.  Is this just a tradition or a divinely established way of doing things?

 

If it's just tradition then OW should keep up their mission and work within Church guidelines to achieve their goal. 

If it is based on eternal law then they should let it go and focus on the roles (and non-ecclesiastical priesthood) that they have already been given.

Because God doesn't change and his laws don't change just because we ask.

If it's just tradition that prevents them holding EP then by all means give it to them.  But if it is God's law that prevents it then they should leave it alone or offend God.

 

I think humans like to define these roles, but it doesn't strike me as something God would be interested in. When practice resembles cultural standards of the generation of those setting policy, I think the takeaway is that it is that culture that is being inculcated, not Divine will. 

[Bikeemikey]

You cannot be serious. This is an attempt at ironic humor, right?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Perhaps but he is pointing out that at the moment there is a lot of concern about the OW protest actions, even though they have been very benign and really very passive.

[Gray]

The King James Translation of the Bible renders this passage as follows:

 

(Romans 16:1)

 

Whether the word translated here as "servant" is properly rendered as "deacon," as some translations have it, has long been a matter of debate among Bible scholars.

 

A comparative glance at several New Testament translations indicates that they vary as to whether the word is translated as "servant," minister" and "deacon," so there appears to be no unanimity of thought on this matter. Certainly, there is no clear indication that she was ordained to a priesthood office.

 

Among the women of the Church today we have those who could properly be regarded as servants or, in a broad sense, ministers. These would, of course, include Relief Society presidents and heads of other auxiliary organizations such as the Young Women and the Primary.

 

On a frequent basis in my work, I deal with women who are Public Affairs representatives of the Church, in both paid and volunteer positions. They serve in highly responsible and visible roles wherein they are expected to convey the face of the Church and communicate its message to news media and other outside organizations. But those roles are not priesthood offices.

 

You indicated, when challenged about your assertion that women were ordained to the priesthood in Biblical times that we could "start" with Romans 16. Is this the best example you have?

 

The  same arguments can be made about males in priesthood roles in the Bible. 

 

There is also Junia, the female apostle. And of course there are prophetesses. 

Edited March 20, 2014 by Gray

[Bikeemikey]

Thinking about it further, the scriptural principle of common consent would seem to apply - and given the Biblical history of women's ordination, I think a real revelation would be needed (from a legalistic perspective) to legitimately overturn what was already given to women. And again, the only revelations that are specifically voted on seem to be the ones that end up canonized.

 

Regarding the revelation on polygamy, a photo of the original exists, in the prophet's handwriting.

 

Since you think that extra-canonical revelation is kosher, can you point to one banning women from the priesthood?

 

Caveat: this is for argument's sake on my part, as I don't view the legalistic paradigm under which we're arguing as spiritually valuable. 

 

Revelation is not bound by precedent so what ever has been said or done in the past on the matter of womens ordination has no bearing on the future. Modern day revelation trumps all.

 

If women did have the priesthood through out the entire biblical tradition that still has no bearing on whether or not they should have it today.

 

Historical precedent is only relevant to what we think should happen. It has no bearing on what the revelation will be.

[Gray]

Revelation is not bound by precedent so what ever has been said or done in the past on the matter of womens ordination has no bearing on the future. Modern day revelation trumps all.

 

If women did have the priesthood through out the entire biblical tradition that still has no bearing on whether or not they should have it today.

 

Historical precedent is only relevant to what we think should happen. It has no bearing on what the revelation will be.

 

There is no modern day revelation (edit: that I know of!) banning women from priesthood. 

Edited March 20, 2014 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

Well you sure seem to have strong feelings on it.

I am simply reporting what Claudia Bushman discussed a few months back. It was her thoughts on the subject, and I would also like to point out that in the format that it was shared in I am sure that it was not addressed in enough detail for her to express all of the nuances that need to be expressed for me to fully understand a her position authoritatively.

Be that as it may, it strikes me as unseemly factionalism that should not prevail in the Church of Jesus Christ. In theory, at least, it is not or should not be regarded as a zero-sum game where one group benefits at the expense of another. If the point is to serve others and assist one another on the pathway to the Kingdom of God, does it matter so much whose funds are cut?

I'm reminded of a Quaker proverb I heard a long time ago:

Thee lift me, and I'll lift thee, and we will ascend together.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

I think humans like to define these roles, but it doesn't strike me as something God would be interested in. When practice resembles cultural standards of the generation of those setting policy, I think the takeaway is that it is that culture that is being inculcated, not Divine will. 

 

So you believe it's simply cultural tradition, in which case women could easily (and should) be given the priesthood.

I believe it's divine (eternally) established role and not subject to change making their request in error.

We don't agree on this and that is completely fine.

 

So who get's the last word in deciding if it is simply tradition or if it is the unchanging nature of priesthood?

 

According to Mormonism the GA's/Prophet get to interpret God's will.  So all the agitating for change is pointless unless the GA's believe it is simply tradition in which case they will approach the Lord for guidance and further revelation.

However, if the GA's believe it's the eternal nature of ecclesiastical priesthood to be male only they aren't going to bother looking for revelation no matter how much people disagree with them.

[JLHPROF]

There is no modern day revelation banning women from priesthood. 

 

There doesn't need to be if it is an eternal principle.

[bluebell]

We know very little about his actions in mortal life. 

 

But we do know something, and what we do know, does not support the idea that Christ wanted women ordained.

 

Especially when we consider the restoration, which we must as believing LDS.

[Bikeemikey]

There is no modern day revelation banning women from priesthood. 

 

No there is not, but it is an issue that the majority of the church (especially the "Brethren") believe would require revelation to change.

 

While it may be true that women do not have the priesthood because of a prophetic "restriction" it is true that the restriction of womens ordination has been a part of our religious identity long enough that it is a legitimate expectation that it changing it should be done by revelation.

 

It may be an example of revelation being needed to changing cultural beliefs (as I am of the opinion was the case with black ordination). Even though that means the process of change (if it happens at all) will be very slow by societies standards, it does mean we can have strong confidence in the change when and if it occurs.

 

Because of this I believe the OW movement to be (currently) exerting a net positive impact on the direction of the church. Challenging our own beliefs periodically is important.

[Bikeemikey]

Be that as it may, it strikes me as unseemly factionalism that should not prevail in the Church of Jesus Christ. In theory, at least, it is not or should not be a zero-sum game where one group benefits at the expense of another. If the point is to serve one others and assist one another on the pathway to the Kingdom of God, does it matter so much whose funds are cut.

 

I'm reminded of a Quaker proverb I heard a long time ago:

 

Those boot-strapping quakers

 

I agree that the funding cut (in the grand scheme of things) is not a big deal.

 

That said, Christ also taught that all sin is not a big deal (in the grand scheme of things) if you embrace the atonement.

 

Unfortunately I do not live at Apartment 100 "in the grand scheme of things" lane. I live on Earth filled with human beings etc etc.

 

That is why i value the conversation that is being generated. As humans we need to talk through these things in order to incrementally improve our relationships and our world.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bernard Gui]

So many really consequential things we face each day, and here we have a group that wants to crash the LDS men's conference. Go ahead. Wear the pants. Wear the ties.  Express your outrage on Temple Square, but is this the best of all possible places to express outrage?

Here's what it sounds like to me:

"If you don't give me the Priesthood, I'm going to wear pants to church and try to break into your meetings!  If you don't give me the Priesthood I'm going to hold my breath until I die and you will be sorry and get really bad PR!"

[Bikeemikey]

So you believe it's simply cultural tradition, in which case women could easily (and should) be given the priesthood.

I believe it's divine (eternally) established role and not subject to change making their request in error.

We don't agree on this and that is completely fine.

 

So who get's the last word in deciding if it is simply tradition or if it is the unchanging nature of priesthood?

 

According to Mormonism the GA's/Prophet get to interpret God's will.  So all the agitating for change is pointless unless the GA's believe it is simply tradition in which case they will approach the Lord for guidance and further revelation.

However, if the GA's believe it's the eternal nature of ecclesiastical priesthood to be male only they aren't going to bother looking for revelation no matter how much people disagree with them.

 

Hopefully a prophet would approach the Lord for guidance even if they do think it is not a matter of tradition but eternal truth. That way their perspective can be confirmed or changed based on Gods actual will. Then they can keep asking periodically until the lord says stop. Then the next prophet after than can ask, then the one after that can ask, and wow! a change comes.

 

FYI that was what happened with the Black ordination issue.

[Bikeemikey]

But we do know something, and what we do know, does not support the idea that Christ wanted women ordained.

 

Especially when we consider the restoration, which we must as believing LDS.

 

So Gary, as much as it appears that I am more sympathetic to you views relative to this debate, speculating on what christ may or may not have done or wanted while on earth is probably not a point that is going to get us very far :-)

 

I have to agree with bluebell on this. We can not know.

[Bikeemikey]

 

So many really consequential things we face each day, and here we have a group that wants to crash the LDS men's conference. Go ahead. Wear the pants. Wear the ties.  Express your outrage on Temple Square, but is this the best of all possible places to express outrage?

Here's what it sounds like to me:

"If you don't give me the Priesthood, I'm going to wear pants to church and try to break into your meetings!  If you don't give me the Priesthood I'm going to hold my breath until I die and you will be sorry and get really bad PR!"

 

 

That is really funny!!!

 

Dont fully agree with it but I always Rep point when good humor is involved.

[JLHPROF]

Hopefully a prophet would approach the Lord for guidance even if they do think it is not a matter of tradition but eternal truth. That way their perspective can be confirmed or changed based on Gods actual will. Then they can keep asking periodically until the lord says stop. Then the next prophet after than can ask, then the one after that can ask, and wow! a change comes.

 

FYI that was what happened with the Black ordination issue.

 

That goes against correct principle - once an answer is given we are not to ask again.  Now, if you believe there has yet to be an answer that's fine.  We should get one.  But once we have an answer we should not ask again.  That goes against doctrine clearly established in scripture and prophetic teaching.  And of course God and eternal law doesn't change so once an answer is clearly received accept it and move on.

[Scott Lloyd]

Those boot-strapping quakers

I agree that the funding cut (in the grand scheme of things) is not a big deal.

That said, Christ also taught that all sin is not a big deal (in the grand scheme of things) if you embrace the atonement.

Unfortunately I do not live at Apartment 100 "in the grand scheme of things" lane. I live on Earth filled with human beings etc etc.

That is why i value the conversation that is being generated. As humans we need to talk through these things in order to incrementally improve our relationships and our world.

But our task is to try to approach the ideal even as we recognize that we won't get all the way there in this life. For me, if that means laying aside petty jealousies about funding and autonomy and whether I'm consulted in advance about what happens in the meeting I conduct, I'm going to try my best to comply.

[Stone holm]

You cannot be serious. This is an attempt at ironic humor, right?Thanks,-Smac

Unfortunately, there is some truth in the argument. Unfortunately or fortunately, that type of demonstration causes backlashes, as was established by what happened after Christ overturned the money changers tables and started whacking people with a braided whip. I don't think things would go well if the same approach was used to combat sexism in the Church. It's just so unladylike.

[awyatt]

But it is accurate to say that the control of funds went from being handled by both men and women (albeit separately at auxiliary level) to just Men (the bishopric of the ward). Coupled with that was the reality that women did not have a strong presence in the ward council process at that point (and some say they still really don't).

 

It should also be pointed at that no one actually said that women were crying woe is me. The person who made this observation pointed to the fact that all auxiliaries were impact, but she felt the impact was more severe to women (not the relief society, but women specifically) as the new structure moved the control of funds exclusively to men.

 

I would take it as anecdotal evidence, at best. To add my own (equally valid) anecdote, in the 6.5 years I was bishop, in our ward the RS and Primary *always* got every penny they asked for in the annual budget request. I typically gave YW more than they asked for, as (IMO) they didn't ask for enough. I wanted to make sure that on a per-capita basis, they got the same amount as the YM.

 

Of course, the very act of saying "I typically gave" coupled with the fact that annual budget requests were turned in to me could be seen by some as prima facia evidence of the very point that was being made. If the only way to remove such complaint is to remove the bishop from the process entirely, that would go against scriptural mandate for the bishop to handle the Church's temporal affairs, no? Plus, I don't see the statement "bishop, here's what we need" with the response, "fine, go for it" as evidence of women being "hit hard" by financial changes.

 

-Allen