Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[JLHPROF]

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

 

Oh, there are so many things wrong with these statements:

 

1. As I put in another post I don't think the Church should cave on this without a direct revelation.  However, I still think we will see the day when it will happen one way or another.  I forsee some kind of  revelation coming at some point.  It has nothing to do with my understanding of the eternal plan.  I am simply going on past history to predict future events.

 

2. Oh, the Church absolutely did cave to pressure to remove plural marriage and achieve statehood.  Yes, Pres. Woodruff received a revelation.  Yes, that revelation guided the issuance of the Manifesto.  Other than that history is pretty clear on the events surrounding the manifesto.  And there is more than a passing similarity to the Women and the Priesthood issue.

 

3. Yes it would require a change in doctrine.  It wouldn't be the first one and it won't be the last one.

 

4. Banning plural marriage was an absolute change in doctrine.  Read the doctrines about plural marriage that are no longer taught as true.

[mtomm]

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?

Apparently two of the sisters currently in those positions understood why they felt a consultation with them would have been appropriate. I'm just taking those women who were very close to the situation words for it and not just a bunch of commenters on the internet.

Perhaps they were usually much more involved prior to this and that is why they were taken by surprise.

[teddyaware]

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

It's clear there will be no need for a change in doctrine because the faithful women of the Church are already promised they will one day be called to be priestesses unto God and their husbands. I believe where the problem comes in for the OW movement is that it's very likely the roles and scope of the authority within the priestesshood  will be be on a parallel to that of the priesthood and will likely be different from the priesthood in some significant ways. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say the priesthood and the priestesshood will be complimentary to one another in much the same way the Relief Society and Young Women's organizations are complimentary to the Melchizedek Priesthood organization of the adult males and the Aaronic Priesthood organization of the young men. So I would imagine even after the revelation is given that fully sets forth the roles of the priestesshood, the OW movement will continue on in their misguided quest because they won't be satisfied until they are ordained priests, not priestesses.

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[rockpond]

It's clear there will be no need for a change in doctrine because the faithful women of the Church are already promised they will one day be called to be priestesses unto God...

 

Sounds like the promise made to those of African descent and they received the priesthood far ahead of the original forecast given by President Young.  I'm sure the same will happen with the sisters in the church.

[Stone holm]

Sounds like the promise made to those of African descent and they received the priesthood far ahead of the original forecast given by President Young.  I'm sure the same will happen with the sisters in the church.

Well if there is any correlation in extension of privileges, women always lag behind the African Americans by a few decades.

[rockpond]

Well if there is any correlation in extension of privileges, women always lag behind the African Americans by a few decades.

 

True.

[mormonnewb]

Well if there is any correlation in extension of privileges, women always lag behind the African Americans by a few decades.

Sadly, if suffrage is our guidepost, we're talking about 5 1/2 decades, which would date the ordination of women sometime around 2033.

[teddyaware]

Sadly, if suffrage is our guidepost, we're talking about 5 1/2 decades, which would date the ordination of women sometime around 2033.

Why is it sad if the faithful women of the Church are already promised a fullness of glory and happiness in the eternities. Using the world's godless standards as a measuring rod to gage the success of the Church of Jesus Christ is pure folly.

[mormonnewb]

Why is it sad if the faithful women of the Church are already promised a fullness of glory and happiness in the eternities. Using the world's godless standards as a measuring rod to gage the success of the Church of Jesus Christ is pure folly.

In this case, the "world's godless standard" that you decry is the equal right of women to vote?

But yes, to the extent that it is "godless" to pray for the practical implementation of the principle that "all are alike to God," I plead guilty. I also confess to longing for the day when "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

It is not my place to determine when that can happen in the Church, but I can long for that day just as Christians have longed for Christ's return for the last 2,000 years.

[rockpond]

Why is it sad if the faithful women of the Church are already promised a fullness of glory and happiness in the eternities. Using the world's godless standards as a measuring rod to gage the success of the Church of Jesus Christ is pure folly.

 

I second MormonWeb's answer and state that I don't think it is a "godless standard" we're looking at.

 

But, what would you suggest using as a "measuring rod to gauge the success of the Church of Jesus Christ"?

[Kenngo1969]

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?

Fine.  If the semantics bother you, pick another label you think might be suitable.  In any event, providing an accounting of one's stewardship is not solely the province of those who hold keys (there are only four such men in any given unit anyway) or of those who hold the Priesthood.  Likewise, the principle of "return and report" is not so limited.

[Stone holm]

Why is it sad if the faithful women of the Church are already promised a fullness of glory and happiness in the eternities. Using the world's godless standards as a measuring rod to gage the success of the Church of Jesus Christ is pure folly.

No I don't think we can use it as quite that kind of gauge , because the Church usually has about a 30+ year lag behind cultural change. So I think it could be farther out than that. Course death is the perfect time to bestow blessings, unfortunately that tends to play into Marx's comments about a particular form of opiate, but it did create a whole genre of heart wrenching gospel music inspired by slavery about heaven.

[rockpond]

Fine.  If the semantics bother you, pick another label you think might be suitable.  In any event, providing an accounting of one's stewardship is not solely the province of those who hold keys (there are only four such men in any given unit anyway) or of those who hold the Priesthood.  Likewise, the principle of "return and report" is not so limited.

 

Yeah, I think my bishop uses the term "PPI" for his monthly interviews with the RS Pres, Primary Pres, and YW Pres even though they aren't priesthood holders.  Then again, you could view it as those three sisters meeting with the bishop to help HIM fulfill is priesthood responsibilities and stewardship over the ward.

[why me]

No I don't think we can use it as quite that kind of gauge , because the Church usually has about a 30+ year lag behind cultural change.

I don't think that women in the church will ever get the same priesthood as the men. I can see it having a different form of priesthood. As I have said many times the church would need a deep structural change if the priesthood would be exactly the same.

 

Also, what exactly is cultural change? We need to remember that the church is world wide and although the world is certainly influenced by hollywood and other american cultural outlets, I cannot see the russians or the greeks welcoming such a cultural change, especially considering the religions that have influenced their cultures. America and its identity politics and cultural trends is not the world.

[jchristopher]

Sadly, if suffrage is our guidepost, we're talking about 5 1/2 decades, which would date the ordination of women sometime around 2033.

It's ridiculous to think you can predict when or of God will instruct his servants to change church policy

[rockpond]

It's ridiculous to think you can predict when or of God will instruct his servants to change church policy

It's not about predicting when God will instruct... It's about predicting when His servants will have a strong enough impetus to ask Him.

[Stone holm]

I don't think that women in the church will ever get the same priesthood as the men. I can see it having a different form of priesthood. As I have said many times the church would need a deep structural change if the priesthood would be exactly the same.

 

Also, what exactly is cultural change? We need to remember that the church is world wide and although the world is certainly influenced by hollywood and other american cultural outlets, I cannot see the russians or the greeks welcoming such a cultural change, especially considering the religions that have influenced their cultures. America and its identity politics and cultural trends is not the world.

I agree there is no real need for women to receive the same priesthood as men, this issue in that respect is different than the every worthy male issue and there are several alternatives to overcoming the non- sustainable problem which is the exclusion of women from the decision making hierarchy. As to culture, the Church leadership remains overwhelmingly American and Church culture is overwhelmingly American. However, as the Church becomes more global the cultural influence of other areas which are more advanced culturally than America are likely to intensify or accelerate change. For example European distaste for American Southern culture and its racism during WWII had an impact on American GIs which in turn had an impact on the American Civil Rights movement, which in turn impacted the Church. There is no reason to believe that similar impacts regarding sexism won't occur.

[Rob Osborn]

Perhaps this has already been brought up (dont particularly want to read all 46 pages) but I do see the man and women having different but equally important roles. The man or husband and father has pretty much always been the protector and thus lawmaker of his family. In order to provide protection for his family he ensures rules and decisions are in line with providing the duty of protector. He has also been seen as the one in charge of being the main provider. This because he does not bear children or take primary care for small children and as such can devote more of his resources and time to providing the substance for life. The female iis the life bearer whose primary responsibility is to ensure the raising and nurturing of children providing that service so necessary to carrying on society. Traditionally the man is the head of the home with his wife equally by his side. There is nothing wrong with this picture, just our view of it in an ever changing world morally and politically. I am oft reminded of the Little House on the Prairie episodes and the traditional roles portrayed in the shows. There is nothing wrong with those traditional roles- it works very well. This does not place the man above the women nor the women above the man. Just because there is a head of household does not place him above his wife. Its just the way it works. Hopefully I don't get grilled to bad over this.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not about predicting when God will instruct... It's about predicting when His servants will have a strong enough impetus to ask Him.

It's only a matter of time before the Church starts [pick your favorite fantasy and fill in the blank here] or stops [pick your least favorite law, commandment, doctrine, policy or practice, and fill in the blank here]. We just have to wait for the old guys to die off and we get some Young Turks in office who are not afraid to succumb to social pressure and tell God what's what.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

It's not about predicting when God will instruct... It's about predicting when His servants will have a strong enough impetus to ask Him.

 

So you don't believe that any of them have actually asked God how He feels about female ordination?

[rockpond]

It's only a matter of time before the Church [pick your favorite fantasy and fill in the blank here] or stops [pick your least favorite law, commandment, doctrine, policy or practice, and fill in the blank here]. We just have to wait for the old guys to die off and we get some Young Turks in office who are not afraid to succumb to social pressure and tell God what's what.

 

Wow, Scott, you're comin' around!

 

#StrawmanAlert

[JLHPROF]

It's only a matter of time before the Church starts [pick your favorite fantasy and fill in the blank here] or stops [pick your least favorite law, commandment, doctrine, policy or practice, and fill in the blank here]. We just have to wait for the old guys to die off and we get some Young Turks in office who are not afraid to succumb to social pressure and tell God what's what.

 

This is unfortunately true.  Now someone is going to say that the Church doesn't ever do that.  That the church never changes due to social pressure.  History shows that they do.

[rockpond]

So you don't believe that any of them have actually asked God how He feels about female ordination?

 

I don't know.  If they believe that they already have the answer, there would be no reason to ask.

[bluebell]

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you.

 

It kind of seems though like your just saying "God wants women to have the priesthood, so if they don't yet, it's obviously because the leadership hasn't asked Him."

 

I can't think of another way to interpret your statement that you are simply predicting that women will be ordained in 30 years because you are simply predicting when the leadership will want to ask God His feelings about it.

 

Am i way off?

[rockpond]

 

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you.

 

It kind of seems though like your just saying "God wants women to have the priesthood, so if they don't yet, it's obviously because the leadership hasn't asked Him."

 

I can't think of another way to interpret your statement that you are simply predicting that women will be ordained in 30 years because you are simply predicting when the leadership will want to ask God His feelings about it.

 

Am i way off?

 

 

I believe this scripture to be true:

 

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

 

And it seems to me that last time we asked Him, he said:  yes, all are alike.