Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Paloma]

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.

In many ways, this traditional view of the family is winsomely appealing. Who doesn't feel some warm fuzzies when the Little House on the Prairie is invoked!

But it doesn't work for all.

There are men who function best when leadership is exhibited by their wives, and vice versa.

There are women whose nature thrives in the "outside world" and who die a little when confined to home duties day in and day out all day long for as long as they are mothering young children.

There are women who love to care for children, to cook and maintain the home, and there are other women for whom this totally goes against the grain.

People are wonderfully and uniquely made, and one model does not fit all.

You wrote above that the man is not above the woman nor the woman above the man. And while you were positioning that statement within the 'traditional' view of family that you described, I would say that the same kind of equality can be advocated, yet found within more non-traditional scenarios that honour both the distinctiveness and uniqueness of man and woman.

I think that men and women can live out their masculinity and femininity in vastly more disparate and creative ways than purely traditional models allow.

[smac97]

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.

 

So there would be no reason to have any strictures on the priesthood.  For example, I think there are plenty of non-LDS who would make great priesthood holders.  By your reasoning, these people should be ordained to the priesthood.  If we fail to do so, we are differentiating God's children, and therefore violating 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

I also know plenty of non-LDS who would make lousy priesthood holders.  But again, by your reasoning, these people must also be ordained to the priesthood, because otherwise we are violating the precept that "all are alike" unto God.

 

Your reasoning necessarily abolishes any restriction on who is ordained to the priesthood.  Do you recognize that?  If you disagree, please A) identify what strictures on priesthood ordination you find appropriate, B) the scriptural basis for those strictures, and C) how you reconcile those strictures with your above interpretation of 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited March 27, 2014 by smac97

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

So you believe the heathen should have the priesthood. Should non members have the priesthood too. After all "All are alike". I mean seriously I am not interested in your private interpretation. Peter spoke about that long ago.

[rockpond]

So there would be no reason to have any strictures on the priesthood.  For example, I think there are plenty of non-LDS who would make great priesthood holders.  By your reasoning, these people should be ordained to the priesthood.  If we fail to do so, we are differentiating God's children, and therefore violating 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

I also know plenty of non-LDS who would make lousy priesthood holders.  But again, by your reasoning, these people must also be ordained to the priesthood, because otherwise we are violating the precept that "all are alike" unto God.

 

Your reasoning necessarily abolishes any restriction on who is ordained to the priesthood.  Do you recognize that?  If you disagree, please A) identify what strictures on priesthood ordination you find appropriate, B) the scriptural basis for those strictures, and C) how you reconcile those strictures with your above interpretation of 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

No, I don't see it that way.

 

I believe we can see all being alike to God without removing the process of receiving the priesthood (i.e. baptism comes first) and worthiness.

 

I'm not making a case about the "strictures" so I'm not really interested in making a list of scriptures for you to back them up.  You are welcome to disagree with my position.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow, Scott, you're comin' around!

 

#StrawmanAlert

You have essentially stated just what Scott said in other threads. That when the time comes after all of these older men die off there will come a time that Gay marriage is performed in the temple and women will get the priesthood once we get some young blood in there. As right now the only reason this isn't happening is because of cultural bias in the church and old men and their traditions.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, I don't see it that way.

 

I believe we can see all being alike to God without removing the process of receiving the priesthood (i.e. baptism comes first) and worthiness.

 

I'm not making a case about the "strictures" so I'm not really interested in making a list of scriptures for you to back them up.  You are welcome to disagree with my position.

So you are not even willing to defend your position. Funny.

[bluebell]

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.

 

I believe it's true as well.

 

It was given at a time when the priesthood was restricted to only the Israelites, right?  The Gentiles, who this scripture claims are like the Israelites to God, were restricted from having it.

 

For me, knowing that teaches me better how to interpret this verse.  It teaches me that all can be alike to God, without all being given the exact same privileges and responsibilities at the same time.

[rockpond]

So you believe the heathen should have the priesthood. Should non members have the priesthood too. After all "All are alike". I mean seriously I am not interested in your private interpretation. Peter spoke about that long ago.

 

I don't expect you to be interested in my private interpretation.

 

I believe we can see all being alike to God without removing the process of receiving the priesthood (i.e. baptism comes first) and worthiness.

[rockpond]

You have essentially stated just what Scott said in other threads. That when the time comes after all of these older men die off there will come a time that Gay marriage is performed in the temple and women will get the priesthood once we get some young blood in there. As right now the only reason this isn't happening is because of cultural bias in the church and old men and their traditions.

 

Scott's statement went much broader than what you are saying here.  But if God wants gays to be sealed in the temple and women to hold priesthood office then yes, He would need us to get beyond our mortal & cultural biases.  And yes, it seems that such a process takes time.

[ksfisher]

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.

I don't see how this scripture could be used to argue for womens ordination.  It says nothing about the priesthood, but speaks about partaking "of his goodness."  No one who wants to partake is discriminated against.  Qualifications for the priesthood are not discussed, see Alma 13 for that.

[rockpond]

So you are not even willing to defend your position. Funny.

 

I defended my position... take a look at my response.  I just said that I'm not willing to take the time to make a list of scriptures to back up a position that I haven't taken.

[rockpond]

I believe it's true as well.

 

It was given at a time when the priesthood was restricted to only the Israelites, right?  The Gentiles, who this scripture claims are like the Israelites to God, were restricted from having it.

 

For me, knowing that teaches me better how to interpret this verse.  It teaches me that all can be alike to God, without all being given the exact same privileges and responsibilities at the same time.

 

Yes, there appear to have been times when the priesthood was restricted.  And there was a long period of time in this dispensation when both priesthood and temple ordinances were restricted.  And then God said "Stop it" (using Pres Uchtdorf's words since I don't know exactly what words God used).

 

But I respect your interpretation of that scripture.  You could be absolutely correct in your application.  We can reconvene here in 30 years and see what has happened.

[Bernard Gui]

I don't expect you to be interested in my private interpretation.

 

I believe we can see all being alike to God without removing the process of receiving the priesthood (i.e. baptism comes first) and worthiness.

But the process includes restrictions, so if you maintain the process you must exclude individuals and groups.....non-baptized,

unbelievers, those who aren't worthy. And you must have some criteria for worthiness. In any case, you end up in the same

situation of exclusion. 2 Nephi 26:33 cannot be used in support of the ordination of women.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

I don't see how this scripture could be used to argue for womens ordination.  It says nothing about the priesthood, but speaks about partaking "of his goodness."  No one who wants to partake is discriminated against.  Qualifications for the priesthood are not discussed, see Alma 13 for that.

 

There was a day when we interpreted scripture as arguing in favor of denying the priesthood and temple ordinances to blacks.  All of those scriptural interpretations have not been officially disavowed.

 

Will the same happen with women's ordination?  I don't know.  And I suspect you don't either.

[jchristopher]

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.

So PPI's are for anyone who has a stewardship in the church including family patriarchal and matriarchal stewardships?

Don't the women of the church exercise the priesthood all the time, whether it be the bishop's priesthood or their husband's, at church and in the home?

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow, Scott, you're comin' around!

 

#StrawmanAlert

Just doing a bit of reductio ad absurdum.

[jchristopher]

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.

Doesn't this promise refer to the next life? This issue is regarding women receiving priesthood ordination in this life

[rockpond]

But the process includes restrictions, so if you maintain the process you must exclude individuals and groups.....non-baptized,

unbelievers, those who aren't worthy. And you must have some criteria for worthiness. In any case, you end up in the same

situation of exclusion. 2 Nephi 26:33 cannot be used in support of the ordination of women.

 

One can exercise agency to change their status from a non-baptized, unworthy, unbeliever to a baptized, worthy, believer.

 

The exercise of agency will not change one's skin color or gender.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I'm not disposed to share your pessimism, even as I'm not disposed to board rockpond's flights of fancy.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

So you believe the heathen should have the priesthood. Should non members have the priesthood too. After all "All are alike". I mean seriously I am not interested in your private interpretation. Peter spoke about that long ago.

 

So we are equating women with heathen now?

[Bernard Gui]

One can exercise agency to change their status from a non-baptized, unworthy, unbeliever to a baptized, worthy, believer.

 

The exercise of agency will not change one's skin color or gender.

That doesn't solve your problem. Either all are alike re: the priesthood, or they are not. Which is it?

[Bernard Gui]

So we are equating women with heathen now?

No. The problem is the conflation of God's gift of salvation with rights to the Priesthood by using 2 Nephi 26:33 to justify ordination of women.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[jchristopher]

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."

I think it has been clearly established, both by ancient and modern revelation, that gender is part of our eternal identity. It will not go away "in Christ," or in the next life. The scripture you quoted refers to equality and justice, not to our identities being absolved. It implies that we are all heirs or children of Christ, brothers and sisters

[rockpond]

That doesn't solve your problem. Either all are alike re: the priesthood, or they are not. Which is it?

 

It resolves it for me... We're all alike but we can use our agency to put ourselves in a position where we cannot receive the gifts God has for us.

[rockpond]

I don't share your pessimism, even as I don't get onboard rockpond's flights of fancy.

 

Scott -- I'll always keep a first-class seat reserved for you on my flights of fancy should you ever decide to board.