jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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"?The lives of its members.
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.Good insight on culture change. Americans tend to think of their country as "the world"
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.Maybe they already have asked. Or maybe the Holy Spirit forbid them from asking because it was not the Lord's will
halconero Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Doesn't this promise refer to the next life? This issue is regarding women receiving priesthood ordination in this life Yes and no. Women already perform ordinances in the initiatory and the endowment. Higher ordinances which are not given to most members also clearly point towards a women acting in the priesthood in mortality. 2
ksfisher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.True, understanding of scripture has changed in the past. However, you seem to be wresting this one entirely out of context. Nephi is writing about creating a Zion like community where all are free to partake of the goodness of God, not about the priesthood.
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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. You're not "making the case?" You are ignoring the CFR? Why, then, should we take you seriously at all if you are not willing to explain your position? You approve of some restrictions on the priesthood (church membership, worthiness, and probably more), but not others (gender). But you refuse to explain why some restrictions are acceptable and others are not? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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. You are in favor of restricting the priesthood in some ways (baptism and worthiness), but not others (gender), but you refuse to explain why some restrictions are acceptable and some are not. You are publicly advocating for what you are now calling your "private interpretation," but you refuse to explain the basis for that interpretation. I find that significant.Thank you, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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. So "I defended my position" = "Because I say so." No scriptures. No reasoning. No explanation. Yeah, that's not gonna work. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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 samesituation of exclusion. 2 Nephi 26:33 cannot be used in support of the ordination of women. Amen. -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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? I think it would be more appropriate to say that women have complete access to all the blessings of the priesthood. But to say they "exercise" it when they do not (they do not pass the Sacrament, baptize, etc.) seems to be a bit off. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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? I think it would be more appropriate to say that women have complete access to all the blessings of the priesthood. But to say they "exercise" it when they do not (they do not pass the Sacrament, baptize, etc.) seems to be a bit off. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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. Quite true, but irrelevant to your previous reliance on 2 Nephi 26:33 as a scriptural basis for removing the gender restriction on priesthood ordination. But since you refuse to defend or explain your position in any meaningful sense, I suppose pursing this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Thank you, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) So we are equating women with heathen now? If "heathen" means "non-LDS," then to some extent, yes, there is a comparison being presented here. We value our brothers and sisters who are not LDS, but that does not mean we give them the priesthood. That has no bearing on their decency as a human being, their worth in the eyes of God, and so forth. So let's skip the faux indignation schtick. Do you support the ordination of non-LDS to the priesthood? Why or why not? Thanks, -Smac Edited March 27, 2014 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 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. So exercising of agency to "put ourselves in a position" to receive the priesthood (in a word, "worthiness") is, for your, an acceptable restriction on priesthood ordination. What other restrictions do you approve of? Thanks, -Smac
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 You're not "making the case?" You are ignoring the CFR? Why, then, should we take you seriously at all if you are not willing to explain your position? You approve of some restrictions on the priesthood (church membership, worthiness, and probably more), but not others (gender). But you refuse to explain why some restrictions are acceptable and others are not? Thanks, -Smac I have made my case and I'm not sure what CFR you are referring to... someone previously asked for scriptures but those were relating to his/her argument, not mine. I have explained why I think some restrictions make sense, I differentiate by that which is governed by agency and that which is not (you'll see that I covered that in several responses).
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 So exercising of agency to "put ourselves in a position" to receive the priesthood (in a word, "worthiness") is, for your, an acceptable restriction on priesthood ordination. What other restrictions do you approve of? Thanks, -Smac I think I've covered the restrictions. Age seems to be a reasonable one but the 12/14/16 year old designations for Aaronic Priesthood office seem to be more a matter of convention. Quite true, but irrelevant to your previous reliance on 2 Nephi 26:33 as a scriptural basis for removing the gender restriction on priesthood ordination. But since you refuse to defend or explain your position in any meaningful sense, I suppose pursing this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Thank you, -Smac I've defended and explained my position to you and others. It's just my opinion. Feel free to reject it.
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 So "I defended my position" = "Because I say so." No scriptures. No reasoning. No explanation. Yeah, that's not gonna work. Thanks, -Smac I provided a scripture, my reasoning, and an explanation of that reasoning. And now I have responded to your repeated claims that I am not defending my position.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Scott -- I'll always keep a first-class seat reserved for you on my flights of fancy should you ever decide to board.Alas, I fear your flights of fancy are destined for the fate of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Alas, I fear your flights of fancy are destined for the fate of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. Too soon for that joke.
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) 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.Of course the church leaders are influenced and prompted by social pressures, but the Lord is not, and I don't believe their is much they do that is out of step with the Lord. Edited March 27, 2014 by jchristopher
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Wow That is not Scott's position. It's an absurd strawman he posted to show that he understands Latin. Or something like that. In any case, he doesn't actually believe it. Neither do I.
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.It sounds like you're misinterpreting this scripture.
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 It sounds like you're misinterpreting this scripture. So I've been told.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 That is not Scott's position. It's an absurd strawman he posted to show that he understands Latin. Or something like that. In any case, he doesn't actually believe it. Neither do I. rockpond might say he doesn't believe it, but it's the logical extension of his thinking. It's a rhetorical device called reductio ad absurdum.
Recommended Posts