Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Gray]

You have essentially said "the female perspective" takes in a whole spectrum of viewpoints. Which pretty much makes the term meaningless.

 

I don't agree with that assessment. That there are many female perspective does not mean that some representation of those perspectives should not be given in church leadership 

 

Perspective is about more than opinions. It's also about life experience. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

It also seriously undercuts the necessity of having women in the Quorum. After all, the Brethren also do not have a "perspective" across the whole spectrum of men, either, but that doesn't mean "the whole spectrum" must have a delegation on the Quorum.

This vivisection of priesthood quorums into differing viewpoints is not tenable. I prefer the current process, which centers on revelation and ascertaining the will of God, not pop psychology references to a non-existent "female perspective."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'd also like to see greater diversity among the male members of the quorum. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Anything is possible, but I don't personally believe we get that kind of revelation. 

Maybe you don't. And I haven't yet. But to deny that it ever happens is to contradict, Joseph Smith, Moses, Abraham, the apostle John, the apostle Paul, Stephen, Nephi, the brother of Jared, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (pardon, I know that includes Oliver) and a host of others.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

So the highest quorums would need to have delegates from both groups?

I do not think it is accurate to characterize the male-only ordination of the priesthood as a "policy."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It's not just policy. It's also tradition, one that we seem to have adopted from our Christian friends. I don't think it goes deeper than that, but I understand why many think it does

[JLHPROF]

The female perspective includes many women who want the priesthood and many who don't. And many who would be active members today if not for current policy.

 

I don't think maintaining the activity of any group of people is worth violating correct principle.

Homosexuals may go inactive if they're not allowed to marry in the temple.  Let them.  Evolutionists may go inactive if the Church teaches the creation as historical.  Let them.  Fundamentalists may go apostate if the Church ends polygamy or changes the Temple.  Let them.  And if a small group of women want to go inactive because they can't hold priesthood?  I say again, let them.

 

This whole silly arguement over women and the priesthood seriously needs some perspective sometimes.  There is only one reason women should be ordained - God says to ordain them.  It's the only reason, motive, or valid excuse for doing so.  Society, a voice in the Church, capability, numbers of supporters, and all the other topics are just white noise and mean nothing.

 

So unless God says "Thus saith the Lord (or something like that but not necessarily exactly that), the time has come for my daughters to be ordained to my priesthood" I will not be in favor of any such thing, no matter how many people are unhappy with the status quo.

Edited March 26, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Maybe you don't. And I haven't yet. But to deny that it ever happens is to contradict, Joseph Smith, Moses, Abraham, the apostle John, the apostle Paul, Stephen, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (pardon, I know that includes Oliver) and a host of others.

 

Some of those people probably aren't historical figures. But anyway, I'm not discounting the reality of visions. They are part of the human experience

[Gray]

I don't think maintaining the activity of any group of people is worth violating correct principle.

Homosexuals may go inactive if they're not allowed to marry in the temple.  Let them.  Evolutionists may go inactive if the Church teaches the creation as historical.  Let them.  Fundamentalists may go apostate if the Church ends polygamy or changes the Temple.  Let them.  And if a small group of women want to go inactive because they can't hold priesthood?  I say again, let them.

 

This whole silly arguement over women and the priesthood seriously needs some perspective sometimes.  There is only one reason women should be ordained - God says to ordain them.  It's the only reason, motive, or valid excuse for doing so.  Society, a voice in the Church, capability, numbers of supporters, and all the other topics are just white noise and mean nothing.

 

So unless God says "Thus saith the Lord (or something like that but not necessarily exactly that), the time has come for my daughters to be ordained to my priesthood" I will not be in favor of any such thing, no matter how many people are unhappy with the status quo.

 

I think the lost sheep parable is the best counter I can come up with to that.

 

But in my view, the only reason why women should not be ordained is if God said not to, which even under the most literal view of scripture, He never did. 

 

No revelation is needed to ordain women now. Because there is no reason not to. 

[JLHPROF]

I think the lost sheep parable is the best counter I can come up with to that.

 

But in my view, the only reason why women should not be ordained is if God said not to, which even under the most literal view of scripture, He never did. 

 

No revelation is needed to ordain women now. Because there is no reason not to. 

 

1. The lost sheep parable doesn't apply if the sheep don't want to follow where the flock is going.

 

2. It's true God never said in scripture not to ordain women.  He did however specifically refer to priesthood as being give to sons in many places.

 

3. No revelation is needed to ordain women?  Well if we believe the priesthood ban was never revealed from God and isn't scriptural why would He give a revelation to end that?  By way of correction.  If you are correct (and I don't think you are) we just need another corrective revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some of those people probably aren't historical figures.

 

I scarcely know how to respond to this.

 

All of the ones I mentioned are major figures in LDS teaching, and all are regarded as real people who lived on the earth and did the things the scriptures say they did.

 

 

But anyway, I'm not discounting the reality of visions. They are part of the human experience

 

but unless I am misunderstanding you, they are not part of the "broad revelation," anything beyond which you find untenable.

[JLHPROF]

Gray, on 26 Mar 2014 - 4:14 PM, said:

Some of those people probably aren't historical figures.

 

I scarcely know how to respond to this.

All of the ones I mentioned are major figures in LDS teaching, and all are regarded as real people who lived on the earth and did the things the scriptures say they did

 

I know the feeling.  The idea that Abraham and Moses are mythical is still crazy for anyone claiming to believe in Mormonism.

Especially since Joseph Smith claimed priesthood keys restored through them which is done by laying on of hands last I checked.  This was not just a vision but a visitation.

[smac97]

I'd also like to see greater diversity among the male members of the quorum.

Well, there is "diversity" in the quorum.  Those men come from a variety of backgrounds.

 

I suspect, though, that your reference to "diversity" means racial diversity, right?  If so, I think that will come naturally, without any sort of "affirmative action" stuff. Check out this graph showing church membership growth:

 

 

My general understanding is that the Church was overwhelmingly US-based and Caucasian-based for the first 130 or so years of its existence.  The men who end up in the upper quorums of the Church have usually spent a lifetime in the Church and have had extensive experience in lower priesthood leadership callings (bishop, stake president, area authority seventy, seventy, etc.).  The "pool" of potential candidates has diversified only in the last few decades.

 

That said, I've never been particularly comfortable with race-based nose-counting amongst the Brethren, but it looks like the Seventy is rather "diverse" (read: racially and culturally diverse) group:

• Ulisses Soares (Presidency of 1st Quorum of the Seventy)
• Marcos A. Aidukaitis (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Jose L. Alonso (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Carlos H. Amado (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Yoon Hwan Choi (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Claudio R. M. Costa (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Benjamin De Hoyos (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Edward Dube (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Larry J. Echo Hawk (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Enrique R. Falabella (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Eduardo Gavarret (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Carlos A. Godoy (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Gerrit W. Gong (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Walter F. González (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Rafael E. Pino (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Joseph W. Sitati (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Michael John U. Teh (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• José A. Teixeira (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Juan A. Uceda (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Arnulfo Valenzuela (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Francisco J. Viñas (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Kazuhiko Yamashita (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Jorge F. Zeballos (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Claudio D. Zivic (1st Quorum of Seventy)
• Koichi Aoyagi (2nd Quorum of Seventy)
• O. Vincent Haleck (2nd Quorum of Seventy)
• Jairo Mazzagardi (2nd Quorum of Seventy)
• Adrian Ochoa (2nd Quorum of Seventy)
• Gérald Caussé (1st Counselor in Presiding Bishopric)

I think we'll see a "minority" (that is, non-white) apostle in the near future.  And yet the Church will still be faulted, probably along the lines of "Yeah, the Mormons have  ___________ (insert your preferred non-white race category here) in the Quorum of the Twelve, but he's just a token."  Which is why I prefer the revelatory process to affirmative action nose-counting.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2014 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Well, there is "diversity" in the quorum.  Those men come from a variety of backgrounds.

 

I suspect, though, that your reference to "diversity" means racial diversity, right?

 

He spoke earlier of diversity of" life experience."  I'm wondering what that is supposed to mean.

[smac97]

He spoke earlier of diversity of" life experience."  I'm wondering what that is supposed to mean.

 

"Diversity" = "Race"

 

"Diversity of 'Life Experience'" = "Race

 

My sense is that being an apostle in the LDS Church in 2014 requires certain "soft" skill sets (a strong and well-informed testimony, devotion to service, charity in word, thought and deed, etc.) and "hard" skill sets (administrative/leadership abilities).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[jchristopher]

I support dialogue, but I agree this is not likely to end well for the ringleaders insofar as their membership is concerned. A fair number of strident femininists got shown the door in the last century, and its likely that history will repeat itself. Its most likely going to take a whole new generation of GAs before change radical change occurs, if it does. That is the way the Lord works, He lets His leaders die off as He raises a specific leader who will implement any change that He wants.

The church is never going to ordain women to any office of the priesthood

[Scott Lloyd]

"Diversity" = "Race"

 

"Diversity of 'Life Experience'" = "Race

 

My sense is that being an apostle in the LDS Church in 2014 requires certain "soft" skill sets (a strong and well-informed testimony, devotion to service, charity in word, thought and deed, etc.) and "hard" skill sets (administrative/leadership abilities).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I'm suspicious because these days, worshiping at the holy grail of "diversity' tends to open a whole Pandora's box of beasties in terms of lifestyle choices.

[jchristopher]

Please tell me you are not part of the Church PR department.

One would hope the Church would not greet with open arms a public relations nightmare. A nightmare that would polarize and garner support for the women you hope would be arrested.

PR nightmare or not, I don't think the church is going to get in a tizzy about it.

[jchristopher]

Nope. I'm far too politically incorrect to ever be in PR. But you give them far too much credit if you think that an apostate group being forcibly escorted off church property by the police would garner support among members. As for the general public, well, the church stance on SSM marriage has led to PR issues and the church really doesn't care what the public think.

Amen.

[rockpond]

The church is never going to ordain women to any office of the priesthood

 

Well, at least not within the next 2-3 decades.

[Kenngo1969]

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

My bishop regularly has a PPI with the Relief Society President every month, and occasionally has one with the Young Women's President and Primary President, respectively, as well.  Members of the Bishopric, of Quorum and Group leadership, and of the Relief Society Presidency, the Young Women Presidency, and the Primary Presidency regularly counsel together with one another in Ward Council.  Why do you think nothing similar is happening on the general Church level?

[Bikeemikey]

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

Just a thought.

Sure - but that answer is tautologous and actually doesn't explain the how of that.

Most people I know do engaged in the OW movement do not think equality means sameness, yet they value the OW conversation.

[JLHPROF]

The church is never going to ordain women to any office of the priesthood

 

On this I disagree.  I think the day will come when this will happen.  Eventually just like with plural marriage the public pressure will win out.  The question is "should it?"

[jchristopher]

My bishop regularly has a PPI with the Relief Society President every month, and occasionally has one with the Young Women's President and Primary President, respectively, as well. Members of the Bishopric, of Quorum and Group leadership, and of the Relief Society Presidency, the Young Women Presidency, and the Primary Presidency regularly counsel together with one another in Ward Council. Why do you think nothing similar is happening on the general Church level?

I was under the impression that PPI's were for priesthood leaders to receive an accounting of how priesthood holders have used their priesthood to fulfill their priesthood callings and family duties. What is a ppi?

[jchristopher]

On this I disagree. I think the day will come when this will happen. Eventually just like with plural marriage the public pressure will win out. The question is "should it?"

The church is not going to cave on this issue, and certainly not because of public pressure. The only way the church would change its policy on women and the priesthood is if instructed to do so by divine revelation. And if you think the Lord would do this, then you don't understand his eternal plan. It just simply is not part of the program with respect to our time here in mortality.

Secondly, this issue is nothing like the issue of plural marriage. The church did not cave to public pressure. Pres. Wilford Woodruff received a very specific revelation from The Lord to change the church's policy. Ordaining women to the priesthood does not just require a change in policy, it requires a change in doctrine. Banning the practice of plural marriage in the church was not a change in doctrine

[rodheadlee]

I don't think maintaining the activity of any group of people is worth violating correct principle.

Homosexuals may go inactive if they're not allowed to marry in the temple.  Let them.  Evolutionists may go inactive if the Church teaches the creation as historical.  Let them.  Fundamentalists may go apostate if the Church ends polygamy or changes the Temple.  Let them.  And if a small group of women want to go inactive because they can't hold priesthood?  I say again, let them.

 

This whole silly arguement over women and the priesthood seriously needs some perspective sometimes.  There is only one reason women should be ordained - God says to ordain them.  It's the only reason, motive, or valid excuse for doing so.  Society, a voice in the Church, capability, numbers of supporters, and all the other topics are just white noise and mean nothing.

 

So unless God says "Thus saith the Lord (or something like that but not necessarily exactly that), the time has come for my daughters to be ordained to my priesthood" I will not be in favor of any such thing, no matter how many people are unhappy with the status quo.

Thank you for saying better than I ever could. This post describes my feelings on the subject perfectly. I'd also like to ad that to put God in a box and say that he doesn't vocalize revelations is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Not to denigrate the poster just this idea that God cannot speak to us or will not speak to us is unbelievable, he has spoken to prophets throughout the ages. He has spoken to me, I cherish the 12 words He has spoken to me.

[Calm]

Yep, I think a lot do not grasp it. You would not be alone.

Are you one who believes they should have?  If so, why?

 

For me, scriptures and quotes from tons of people are read in any a number of meetings without an assumption that those heading the meeting need to have an input on what they are saying before publication (and thank goodness as that would be pretty difficult).  My understanding is that the leaders don't proof the talks beforehand to add input either.  Why would they do so in the case of the Proclamation then?

Edited March 27, 2014 by calmoriah