Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[why me]

"I think that the bigger question is: since 90 percent of the members will have the priesthood, would the priesthood be lessened or lose its significance. In"

100% of the membership is baptised, does that lessened or lose it significance? Church leaders and I would hope all believing members would rejoiced to see a 100% temple endowment among adults and sealings among the families. Does that lessen the temp,e or cause it to lose any significance?

Did it lessen the Priesthood to be expanded beyond the sons of Aaron to the sons of Gentiles? Did it lessen it to be expanded to all worthy males?

I think that we may be dealing with something different when it comes to the priesthood. I try to think ahead like a chess player and look at all possibilities before making a move. I can see it becoming lessened if all have the priesthood. I can also see disagreements in the home when both wife and husband struggle with their own family revelations. Like I said, it would be interesting just how it will all play out if the priesthood is given to females.

 

The lds experience would be quite different than other churches that have ordained women. In other faiths, having the priesthood or being a pastor is a calling from god. It does not affect the entire membership per se. For the lds, it means that all when they come of age will get the priesthood. It does create a new dynamic.

Edited March 22, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

And that was a great response. And what was the OW response? We will be there anyway. I think that their response speaks volumes. If they would have listened to the counsel to not come to the square, I may just have more respect for them.

If you don't respect them, why are you apparently following their lead as you see it instead of the Church's? I think we may like many things and many people in life, but the ones we really respect, we really give our heart to are the ones we follow their example of behaving and model our lives after,

If I was given your words shorn of idnetifying context and just kept the tone and accusations and observations and was told this was a spokesperson in the Church and OW discussion, who do you think most would be lining you up with?

[why me]

If you don't respect them, why are you apparently following their lead as you see it instead of the Church's? I think we may like many things and many people in life, but the ones we really respect, we really give our heart to are the ones we follow their example of behaving and model our lives after,

If I was given your words shorn of idnetifying context and just kept the tone and accusations and observations and was told this was a spokesperson in the Church and OW discussion, who do you think most would be lining you up with?

I don't respect their decision to attend to their protest regardless if the church asked them not to. My point is simple: do members listen to the counsel of the church or not. It is a matter of free agency. But if the OW movement is made up of active members, is it wise for such members to disobey counsel? And why would they disobey counsel? And if I did disobey counsel and bring my protest to the door anyway, would this show my true intent?

[Storm Rider]

I don't really see how the priesthood would be lessened by ordaining women to the priesthood, but I see a greater confusion on the role of both men and women. This is not an issue of equality; it is an issue of roles.  A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Should there be any difference between the two genders?  I think there should be; they are not identical and they have different roles. 

 

If they are not identical and have different roles what are those roles?  How does scripture direct us in this regard?  If different roles exist can they still be equal?  

[Calm]

And if I did disobey counsel and behave contrary to the Church's diections anyway, would this show my true intent?

yes, it does. So why is your true intent working contrary to the Church's teaching on this?

The church's teaching by example treating with respect and trust regardless of how they are treated.

Sister Todd went down the line grasping their hands and saying "I am so happy to know you" and she really meant it.

"We appreciate the sincerity of your request and the explanation of your desire to participate in the session…"

 

Edited March 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't really see how the priesthood would be lessened by ordaining women to the priesthood, but I see a greater confusion on the role of both men and women. This is not an issue of equality; it is an issue of roles.  A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Should there be any difference between the two genders?  I think there should be; they are not identical and they have different roles. 

 

If they are not identical and have different roles what are those roles?  How does scripture direct us in this regard?  If different roles exist can they still be equal?

I like Neylain's approach.

[why me]

I don't really see how the priesthood would be lessened by ordaining women to the priesthood, but I see a greater confusion on the role of both men and women. This is not an issue of equality; it is an issue of roles.  A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Should there be any difference between the two genders?  I think there should be; they are not identical and they have different roles. 

 

If they are not identical and have different roles what are those roles?  How does scripture direct us in this regard?  If different roles exist can they still be equal?  

I am trying to understand why members on this forum still write about ordaining women. It is not just women who will get the priesthood but also every worthy girl. We are basically talking about females. If every worthy child is ordained to the priesthood when they come to the right age and this means that most of the lds membership will hold the priesthood, would it lessen its importance? I don't know. But I may tend to think that it would.

 

But the structural change that would need to happen would be deep and far reaching. No relief society. All serve two year missions, no young women's organization, no young men's organization etc. No visiting teaching, all are home teachers. These changes must happen. There can be no segregated meetings if we wish to have true equality. And priesthood meeting would need to be held in the chapel since no other church room can hold all the members who would have the priesthood. And there can be no opt out for females. Like the boys, it should be considered a right of passage and more or less compulsory as it is for the boys. If not, then boys should have an opt out too without consequences.

 

Like I said, it would be interesting to see the structural change that would need to happen.

[why me]

I like Neylain's approach.

Me too. And it is this approach that I like. But Neylain is not about social action. She is more pragmatic.

Edited March 22, 2014 by why me

[Tacenda]

Stormrider, are females only Priestesses when they are in the temple? What does being a Priestess mean anyway?

[Storm Rider]

Stormrider, are females only Priestesses when they are in the temple? What does being a Priestess mean anyway?

 

This is a great question.  I see the role of a Priestess being different from the role of a Priest; they are not interchangeable terms.  I see those terms as reflective and in respect of gender roles.  

 

Man should not be alone and our eternal destiny is dependent upon man and woman becoming one flesh; a single entity.  It is impossible for me to separate the priesthood role from that entity.  Both are needed and both have different roles to fulfill within the entity.  We express those roles differently in the Kingdom of God also.  

 

I reject any idea of priesthood ordination, but I can support a new lexicon that demonstrates clearly the role of the priesthood within the family unit and yet respects the different roles. 

[Bikeemikey]

Her ignorance is deep and profound.

.

I think that comments like this fall in that category of response that does a disservice to the conversation.

Just think how easy it would have been to post the rest of your post and just live this highly hostile and combative line off.

It would have made just as much sense.

I invite you to both edit your post and remove the offending line and to apologize for the attack.

As a forum we should respond more seriously to those who want to lead with personal attacks.

[Bikeemikey]

I am trying to understand why members on this forum still write about ordaining women. It is not just women who will get the priesthood but also every worthy girl. We are basically talking about females. If every worthy child is ordained to the priesthood when they come to the right age and this means that most of the lds membership will hold the priesthood, would it lessen its importance? I don't know. But I may tend to think that it would.

Last I checked it's called young men's, not young boys. Likewise it is young women's.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't respect their decision to attend to their protest regardless if the church asked them not to. My point is simple: do members listen to the counsel of the church or not. It is a matter of free agency. But if the OW movement is made up of active members, is it wise for such members to disobey counsel? And why would they disobey counsel? And if I did disobey counsel and bring my protest to the door anyway, would this show my true intent?

A group of members has asked the prophet to pray about an issue: a very substantial issue, one they feel passionate about.

So far the response has not been, "we've asked and the answer remains no", or "we've asked and had no answer". So far the response feels more like the church is saying were not asking.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Duplicate.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Storm Rider]

A group of members has asked the prophet to pray about an issue: a very substantial issue, one they feel passionate about.

So far the response has not been, "we've asked and the answer remains no", or "we've asked and had no answer". So far the response feels more like were not asking.

I don't think silence from the prophet is an appropriate response to a request for added revelation.

 

So should we have the leadership kept in a room, look over their shoulder to make sure they are fasting, then after a few weeks of daily drilling them on what they prayed about believe them?  Or should we just put all that bothersome revelation stuff aside and know that if the Lord was really going to answer these fine, passionate, faithful members he would just do exactly like they wanted.

 

Do you ever really read what you write?  Do you understand how completely off-base it sounds to anyone that actually believes that God lives and he does things in his own way and in his own time.  More importantly, that God has a really good knack of denying the validity of bowing down to the passions of humanity?

[why me]

Last I checked it's called young men's, not young boys. Likewise it is young women's.

Okay. But with the ordination of females, the segregation would need to end for real equality to be achieved.

[why me]

A group of members has asked the prophet to pray about an issue: a very substantial issue, one they feel passionate about.

So far the response has not been, "we've asked and the answer remains no", or "we've asked and had no answer". So far the response feels more like the church is saying were not asking.

Well, that is fine. But the question remains why are these members coming to temple square to camp out at the door when they have been asked not

to by the church leadership? What does that social action have to do with prayer?

[why me]

Lets say that females get the priesthood. Of course there can't be visiting teaching anymore unless men can also be visiting teachers because that would be a symbol of equality. However, we can have more home teachers. But how would this work. If I am a married man could I have a single woman as my companion? And if I am elder's quorum president and married would it be okay to call two women to be my counselors? I would suppose that it would need to be okay because if not, we would run into equality and trust problems. And can the female bishop call two men to be her counselors? And if I am a single male, could I call two single females as my counselors? I would suppose that this would need to happen since men and women can be equal when they are together sharing in responsibilities. We certainly couldn't just have an all male leadership elder's quorums or all female elder's quorum's leadership.  Tjat would make no sense at all.

 

I wonder how the spouses would feel about these arrangements.

[Bikeemikey]

So should we have the leadership kept in a room, look over their shoulder to make sure they are fasting, then after a few weeks of daily drilling them on what they prayed about believe them? Or should we just put all that bothersome revelation stuff aside and know that if the Lord was really going to answer these fine, passionate, faithful members he would just do exactly like they wanted.

Do you ever really read what you write? Do you understand how completely off-base it sounds to anyone that actually believes that God lives and he does things in his own way and in his own time. More importantly, that God has a really good knack of denying the validity of bowing down to the passions of humanity?

I have edited the original post that you are quoting.

My objection was very clear - there is no need to monitor the prophets. I trust them or I would not be a fully active member of the church. I specifically stated that they have not responded. This was my objection. At a certain point a refusal to ask the question becomes unacceptable. I modified my original post because I do not think we have reached that level. But I believe a prophets role is to seek revelation and so far no response has come saying that revelation has been sought!

I type with my eyes open so yes, I read what I write! But thanks for the personal attack.

I believe in god lives and does things his own way. I also trust that the prophets will tell us what way.

Again, your post is the classic example Or a good thought followed up unnecessary personal attacks and criticism. Your post is better with out it.

I would like to CFA (call for apology) and CFE (call for edit to remove the personal attack). I think we should implement both policies on the forum and finally get rid of these personal attacks on others religious worthiness and ideas.

[Bikeemikey]

Duplicate.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Okay. But with the ordination of females, the segregation would need to end for real equality to be achieved.

That's only your opinion. I don't think equality and sameness are the same thing. I believe we can move toward more equality with out dismantling the gender specific auxiliaries.

However. I don't mind either way, as long as we are moving towards greater equality (which we are).

[Bikeemikey]

Well, that is fine. But the question remains why are these members coming to temple square to camp out at the door when they have been asked not

to by the church leadership? What does that social action have to do with prayer?

The video recently posted on this forum with has the 45mins news interview with three different mormon women with three different perspectives on the issue of women's role in the church and women's ordination is a great example of why OW are doing what they are doing.

They are forcing a conversation.

And it's a conversation we should be having.

Without the OW actions that interview would likely not have occurred. The OW (along with some other commentators) have pushed these conversations into the public forum. Their General conference "protest" have been a huge part of this.

[Bikeemikey]

Lets say that females get the priesthood. Of course there can't be visiting teaching anymore unless men can also be visiting teachers because that would be a symbol of equality. However, we can have more home teachers. But how would this work. If I am a married man could I have a single woman as my companion? And if I am elder's quorum president and married would it be okay to call two women to be my counselors? I would suppose that it would need to be okay because if not, we would run into equality and trust problems. And can the female bishop call two men to be her counselors? And if I am a single male, could I call two single females as my counselors? I would suppose that this would need to happen since men and women can be equal when they are together sharing in responsibilities. We certainly couldn't just have an all male leadership elder's quorums or all female elder's quorum's leadership. Tjat would make no sense at all.

I wonder how the spouses would feel about these arrangements.

While I disagree with your assertion that a change in women's ordination must result in a change in the the idea of gender specific auxiliaries I do believe that the questions you are engaging are extremely important.

Talking together about how the church would look with women included in the priesthood is very important.

It is also to talk about who the church would look if priesthood was not constantly conflated with administration. How would the church look if priesthood was only a requirement for ecclesiastical callings and no longer a requirement for callings like Sunday school president/presidencies, ward clerk or secretary, etc etc.

These are the conversations that will push the conversation forward and engage many more people.

This whole current discussion about whether we should be having the conversation is simply stalking the inevitability of the conversations that will follow.

This should be the topic of a new thread however... Such a topic will derail this one.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[rockpond]

I don't respect their decision to attend to their protest regardless if the church asked them not to. My point is simple: do members listen to the counsel of the church or not. It is a matter of free agency. But if the OW movement is made up of active members, is it wise for such members to disobey counsel? And why would they disobey counsel? And if I did disobey counsel and bring my protest to the door anyway, would this show my true intent?

Do letters from the corporation's public affairs department now contain "counsel of the church" that must be obeyed?

Remember, the letter was signed by Jessica Moody with no other authorship noted. She has not been sustained by the church to act in a counsel giving capacity. Corporations speak through their public affairs department. Church counsel comes through quite different channels.

If the Q12 had, for example, sent that letter to Kelly & OW then I would agree with what you are saying here.

[Bikeemikey]

Do letters from the corporation's public affairs department now contain "counsel of the church" that must be obeyed?

Remember, the letter was signed by Jessica Moody with no other authorship noted. She has not been sustained by the church to act in a counsel giving capacity. Corporations speak through their public affairs department. Church counsel comes through quite different channels.

If the Q12 had, for example, sent that letter to Kelly & OW then I would agree with what you are saying here.

Very well stated.

Part of the general background noise in the conversation is the question of what constitutes religious leadership vs corporate governance.