Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Tacenda]

Problem is people are going away because they are not convinced that we have those words. Its tragic, but we are losing people in droves as they leave high school. Of course its not just our Church, but there seems to be a growing distaste for religion as being obsessed with sex, and the college educated are leaving it behind. (BYU excepted of course.) If we had a Church sponsored marriage mill like BYU out here in the East it might help, or if they prefer the politics of the Confederacy, then down in the South -- but somewhere in the East.

Maybe it's a trust issue. Our devotions shouldn't be to a church or domination but to the Lord. Sometimes people see some things that turn them away from organized religion. There's a lot of busy work, or they may have seen abuse. They may just want to have the relationship with Christ and go about doing good. I have a wood plaque in my home that says "you can preach a better sermon with your life than with your lips".

[VideoGameJunkie]

I agree with Tacenda that the focus should be on the Lord. And I'd like to add that a lot of people leave when they find out history lessons about the church that they might not like, but they should remember it's a perfect church run by imperfect people. The church will never be wrong, though it's leaders are not perfect.

 

The people that leave built their testimonies and foundation on sand and it washed away. They should have built it upon rock.

Edited March 26, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie

[Stone holm]

I agree with Tacenda that the focus should be on the Lord. And I'd like to add that a lot of people leave when they find out history lessons about the church that they might not like, but they should remember it's a perfect church run by imperfect people. The church will never be wrong, though it's leaders are not perfect.

 

The people that leave built their testimonies and foundation on sand and it washed away. They should have built it upon rock.

My great Uncle once wrote an article for his newspaper which was entitled, "Don't leave the Church, Christ didn't." It was directed at the youth of his day, which was my generation. We actually craved spirituality and religion, and many of us when we weren't stoned actually turned towards religion while in college. There was actually an intellectual challenge and resonance with religion. But then American religion quit pondering life, and became obsessed with sex and conformity, and the educated turned away. Not exactly sure how the culture of the former Confederacy came to dominate the religious airways, that was certainly not the direction my generation initially headed in.

[ksfisher]

Inspiration without any data to go on doesn't tend to work very well.

And you don't believe that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have any data? If they don't have any "data" about what the Savior's church on earth needs then who does?

[Scott Lloyd]

The proclamation isn't a revelation. It's a summary of preexisting policies and beliefs. 

 

 

Which came about through revelation.

 

I have rejected your premise that for a revelation to be a revelation it has to have been written down someplace, much less canonized.

 

"The Family: A Proclamation to the World" might be viewed in once sense as an endeavor to document if not codify what has previously been given through revelation.

In any event, even if the proclamation does not have new content, the directive to put "pre-existing policies and beliefs" into a document and proclaim it to the world could very well be viewed as a revelation.

 

There are many instances in the scriptures and in history wherein revelation comes in the form of a directive, not necessarily new doctrine.

 

One example is the directive for Peter and the apostles to take the gospel to the Gentiles. The doctrine had already been revealed to them by Christ face-to-face when he told them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

Another example of revelation in the form of directive is the commandment given through Joseph Smith that the Twelve undertake missionary work in England.

 

I would argue that the 1978 revelation on the priesthood was a directive, not new doctrine. It was already understood that worthy men of all races would one day receive the priesthood.

 

In fact, now that I think about it, most of the time new revelation for governing the Church comes in the form of a directive. It is rare these days for new doctrine to be declared, now that the gospel has been restored in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

 

Edited to add:

 

If, in issuing the proclamation, the First Presidency and the Twelve were not fulfilling the express will of God, what exactly were they doing? If, as Gray says, the content of the proclamation was already existing (meaning, I assume, already in the scriptures, literature, discourses and curricula of the Church), why take the extraordinary step of putting it into a document and addressing it to "responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere"? Link

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Today the Deseret News has published an interesting article on the topic of women and the priesthood by Linda & Richard Eyre: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599450/Women-and-the-priesthood-in-Mormon-theology.html

Here are some key excerpts:

We are in Bali, Indonesia, as we write this column, and while we love so many things about Bali, parts of its culture are distastefully male-dominated. It's causing us to appreciate our own ever-more-equal-but-still-a-long-way-to-go American culture.

“Getting over” the affliction of thinking that, even in a small way, men are better than women or should control women in any manner is part of our maturation as a culture. We wish it could accelerate. In fact, we wish it could happen, completely and totally, right now.

But there is one problem that pervades the feminism culture and that is actually working against the ultimate and worthy goal of total equality. It is the notion that equality means sameness. In actuality, striving for sameness will never produce equality, because there will always be small variants and no two people will ever be the same.

True equality comes only when we realize that two very different things can be precisely equal in importance, in beauty and in ultimate potential.

It’s a simplified comparison, but the corporate vice president of production and the vice president of marketing could be exactly equal but do totally different things.

...

In Mormon theology, neither a man nor a woman is a perfectible entity. Neither can realize full potential alone or achieve the highest heaven. Together, though, in a new kind of oneness defined by interdependence rather than independence, they can form something “exaltable.” Mormons believe that every person will, either here or in a later sphere, have the opportunity for that oneness.

In such a union, striving for that kind of oneness and that kind of salvation, two priesthoods would be redundant and divisive. One priesthood, the power to bless and to call down divine help, shared as indivisibly as the power of procreation, is indispensable to the growth and progress we seek.

We, as members of the LDS Church, follow a religion that teaches that family and eternal life are our ultimate goals and that, as the prophet Harold B. Lee said, “the church is scaffolding with which we build eternal families.” Within this church and within this doctrine, “priesthood” is a family power, shared and used and “worn” by husband and wife together.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

Today the Deseret News has published an interesting article on the topic of women and the priesthood by Linda & Richard Eyre: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599450/Women-and-the-priesthood-in-Mormon-theology.html

Here are some key excerpts:

Thanks,

-Smac

That's a nice piece.

What do we DO with it in terms of ACTION as we move forward with in the church addressing issues of gender equality?

[Scott Lloyd]

That's a nice piece.

What do we DO with it in terms of ACTION as we move forward with in the church addressing issues of gender equality?

Move forward while avoiding "the notion that equality means sameness."

 

Just a thought.

[rockpond]

If, in issuing the proclamation, the First Presidency and the Twelve were not fulfilling the express will of God, what exactly were they doing? If, as Gray says, the content of the proclamation was already existing, why take the extraordinary step of putting it into a document and addressing it to "responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere"? Link

 

Why?  I believe that they felt it would provide foundational/doctrinal support for the upcoming battle against same-sex marriage.

[rockpond]

Today the Deseret News has published an interesting article on the topic of women and the priesthood by Linda & Richard Eyre: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599450/Women-and-the-priesthood-in-Mormon-theology.html

Here are some key excerpts:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That's a great piece.

 

I am not a supporter of the OW movement but to the extent that they are a catalyst for articles and conversations like these... there are some positive effects.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why?  I believe that they felt it would provide foundational/doctrinal support for the upcoming battle against same-sex marriage.

Which would be a very good reason for God to give them a directive to issue it.

 

But, if we are to take Gray at his word, the foundational/doctrinal support was already there. It was, as he characterizes it, "pre-existing."

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Which would be a very good reason for God to give them a directive to issue it.

 

Unless we look back in 30 years and realize that we were wrong.   

 

But, if we are to take Gray at his word, the foundational/doctrinal support was already there. It was, as he characterizes it, "pre-existing."

 

I'm not sure that all of it was pre-existing.  I also don't believe that something is automatically revelation just because the thought hadn't been previously documented.  Nor would the inverse be true.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unless we look back in 30 years and realize that we were wrong.  

 

Well, the Church itself is not going to do that.

 

But individuals might make that claim about virtually any act undertaken by the Church leadership, even if the act has been declared to be a directive from God.

 

In fact, the fundamentalist, apostate, schismatic groups do that very thing with regard to the discontinuance in the Church of the practice of plural marriage.

 

I'm not sure that all of it was pre-existing.  I also don't believe that something is automatically revelation just because the thought hadn't been previously documented.  Nor would the inverse be true.

 

What within the proclamation's content itself was new?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Then I wonder why you said ...

 

... and didn't bother to correct me when I surmised that you were alluding to President Packer's conference address.

 

Someone went to the trouble of changing it. I don't know or care whether it was Pres. Packer or someone else - obviously someone in authority thought that "revelation" was not a good word to describe the proclamation. 

[Gray]

That depends.

 

God will communicate His message whenever and however He is disposed to do so. I don't think it wise to try to place mortal limits on that.

 

I don't think God gives literal words of revelation. I believe we awaken to truth in terms of broader concepts. I don't think anyone has ever managed to get a direct quote from God.

 

My personal opinion, of course. 

[Gray]

And you don't believe that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have any data? If they don't have any "data" about what the Savior's church on earth needs then who does?

 

They certainly don't have the female perspective in their quorum. 

[ksfisher]

I don't think God gives literal words of revelation. I believe we awaken to truth in terms of broader concepts. I don't think anyone has ever managed to get a direct quote from God.

 

My personal opinion, of course. 

And lo a ^avoice from heaven, saying, This is my ^bbeloved ^cSon, in whom I am well pleased.

 

Matthew 1:17

[Tacenda]

http://utahvalley360.com/2014/03/24/i-may-have-been-the-last-woman-to-attend-priesthood-session/

 

I saw this on another board.  Interesting article by this gal who thinks she may have been the last woman to attend a PH session.  I happen to think the OW really don't want to sit through a session, they are just finding any way they can to get their message across.  It's sad that it is the only way they could find, but really it may have been the only way.  Maybe the answer is "no" to them receiving the PH , but they just haven't gotten the answer from God that it is.  Maybe the answer is still lingering out there and either the OW aren't getting it or the leaders of the church aren't getting it or God is letting both sides work it out.  Just as He has done with so much of our learning with the early prophets or leaders and people throughout time.   

[Scott Lloyd]

Someone went to the trouble of changing it. I don't know or care whether it was Pres. Packer or someone else - obviously someone in authority thought that "revelation" was not a good word to describe the proclamation. 

I submit that you are reading too much into a general conference speaker's exercise of personal privilege in altering the written form in which his own talk appears. It could have been that he wanted to avoid the sort of confusion you are exhibiting here, where you don't seem to recognize that a revelation may amount to directive that an action be performed, not necessarily a pronouncement of new doctrine.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think God gives literal words of revelation. I believe we awaken to truth in terms of broader concepts. I don't think anyone has ever managed to get a direct quote from God.

 

My personal opinion, of course. 

It's fine to express your personal opinion, but I don't see how that limits God in choosing time, manner and place in which He reveals His will.

 

Edited to add:

 

I believe that in most instances of revelation, you are right, it is not given verbally. However, there are enough examples in scripture and in latter-day Church history of visions, personal visitations, spoken words etc. to argue against limiting God in any way in the manner he might choose to reveal His will.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

They certainly don't have the female perspective in their quorum. 

They don't have any females in their quorum.

 

That doesn't mean they haven't sought -- and received -- a female perspective.

[Gray]

They don't have any females in their quorum.

 

That doesn't mean they haven't sought -- and received -- a female perspective.

 

Sometimes they don't seek it, as in the examples brought up by Sister Okazaki. Including women in the quorum would instantly solve that problem. 

[Gray]

And lo a ^avoice from heaven, saying, This is my ^bbeloved ^cSon, in whom I am well pleased.

 

Matthew 1:17

 

The scriptures are best understood as vehicles for moral teachings. Getting hung up on the language is an exercise in futility, IMO. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Sometimes they don't seek it, as in the examples brought up by Sister Okazaki. Including women in the quorum would instantly solve that problem. 

I'm not inclined to regard Sister Okazaki's fussing about not being consulted on the wording of the proclamation as a wholesale indication that they don't seek it or that there is a "problem" that needs to be solved by creating the position of female apostle in the Church. I'd be interested to hear from other general women's auxiliary leaders -- present and past -- on this topic.

 

Edited to add:

 

And there's the question of what constitutes "the female perspective." Is it that women ought to be ordained to the priesthood? Apparently a vast majority of the women in the Church don't share that perspective. In fact, if you rely on the Pew study, the males in the Church who believe women should be ordained outnumber the females who believe they should -- although not by much. So as pertaining to Church members, it is more of a male perspective than it is a female one.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

The scriptures are best understood as vehicles for moral teachings. Getting hung up on the language is an exercise in futility, IMO. 

 

"One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

 

How about this one then?  Is it just an example of moral teachings?