rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.I have argued in favor of living prophets. If you want to reduce that to an absurdity and call it logical -- so be it.
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 I have argued in favor of living prophets. If you want to reduce that to an absurdity and call it logical -- so be it. Rockpond, I think I may have been talking past you instead of to you in my recent posts. To the extent I have, I apologize. Thanks, -Smac
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) I have argued in favor of living prophets. If you want to reduce that to an absurdity and call it logical -- so be it.You have in effect argued that living prophets are too stupid or entrenched to understand the difference between divine decree and tradition. Edited March 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 You have in effect argued that living prophets are too stupid or entrenched to understand the difference between divine decree and tradition.No, I haven't. And I don't believe that.
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 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.If your case is not about "stricture," then what is it about?
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.Well said Bluebell
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.Yes, but we know God doesn't want these things. He has already laid forth his law and plan and those things aren't part of it. The record of Moses makes this pretty clear
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 If your case is not about "stricture," then what is it about? At this point, we are so far removed from that particular response that I'm not sure how to respond. Someone, I can't remember who, asked me to provide scriptures to support which "strictures" I thought did belong. Or something to that effect. I politely declined the request to provide a scriptural basis for something that I hadn't argued.
rockpond Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Yes, but we know God doesn't want these things. He has already laid forth his law and plan and those things aren't part of it. The record of Moses makes this pretty clear If you already know what God wants than you really ought to ignore most of what I have to say on these threads.
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 At this point, we are so far removed from that particular response that I'm not sure how to respond. Someone, I can't remember who, asked me to provide scriptures to support which "strictures" I thought did belong. Or something to that effect. I politely declined the request to provide a scriptural basis for something that I hadn't argued. Um, that was me. I thought it was a fair question at the time, but the discussion has moved too far away from that point. Let's move on, folks. Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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. 1. I think you underestimate the love of the shepherd and overestimate the navigational ability of the flock 2. Not surprising given the cultural conditions. All scripture must pass through human consciousness 3. I don't think a revelation was needed to end it. A revelation was needed to convince us to end it, though (IMO)
Gray Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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 unless I am misunderstanding you, they are not part of the "broad revelation," anything beyond which you find untenable. Moses very likely never existed. I think Abraham is doubtful as well. I understand that some find value in thinking these were real people. Personally I don't think it matters either way. In any case, people do experience visions. I don't think any particular vision should be taken literally, but from visionary experiences (and a multitude of other human experiences) we can awaken to larger truths.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 The OW group must be doing something right. Look how many replies this thread has already.
Gray Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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 I'd like to see more ethnic diversity, yes. Also, more representation from around the world, regardless of race. Really more diversity in any sense of the word.
Gray Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But it'd be helpful to not only have these women as consultants but also as team members.
JLHPROF Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 The OW group must be doing something right. Look how many replies this thread has already. Nah, they're just being the squeaky wheel. Doesn't make them right.
JLHPROF Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 2. Not surprising given the cultural conditions. All scripture must pass through human consciousness Interesting concept (maybe for another thread). Is any scripture or revelation actually the word of God? Or is it just man's inclination as to what God wants? I like to think sometimes God actually speaks in real words (not just inspires) in which case human consciousness wouldn't alter anything.
smac97 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 Moses very likely never existed. So who was it that appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (D&C 138:45; HC 3:387)? Is the existence of Jesus Christ likewise dismissable? I think Abraham is doubtful as well. So there was no Isaac, or Jacob, either, right? And no Twelve Tribes? I'm just trying to grasp the concepts you are presuming we understand (I don't think we do). I understand that some find value in thinking these were real people. Personally I don't think it matters either way. Well, if there was no Abraham, then there is no Abrahamic Covenant, no Israel. No foundation for the Restored Gospel. It seems you have not thought through to the profoundly ginourmous ramifications of denying the existence of essential (really, we're talking sin qua non) figures in the Gospel. Because there is no rational way to reconcile such a denial with any coherent adherence to the Gospel. Unless, of course, you don't believe in Christianity in general or Mormonism in particular. In any case, people do experience visions. I don't think any particular vision should be taken literally, but from visionary experiences (and a multitude of other human experiences) we can awaken to larger truths. So when Joseph was told in a vision to flee into Egypt, he shouldn't have taken those instructions "literall?" The angel was just kiddin' around? I'm trying to wrap my head around this line of reasoning, such as it is. Thanks, -Smac
JLHPROF Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Of course the church leaders are influenced and prompted by social pressures, but I don't believe their is much they do with respect to church administration that is out of step with The Lord. Well, I'm glad you have that level of faith in our leaders. I personally like to see actual revelation when changes are made, especially when it appears that they have caved to society.We have seen societal pressures actually cause direct revelation to be issued. We have also seen societal pressures cause policies to change (and we have only assumed revelation was issued.) And we have seen societal pressures cause policies to change (and were told no revelation was necessary for that particular policy). I personally like to know rather than simply trust that God's will is being done. It is a very brave member who accepts change on blind faith (and even on this board we have members from all along the acceptance spectrum - from the blindly faithful to the skeptical cynic).
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.What does women performing ordinances in the temple have to do with being "called to be priestesses unto God and their husbands?"Secondly, what are these "higher ordinances which are not given to most members?" Women "acting" or "exercising" the priesthood is not the same as being ordained to an office or holding the priesthood keys of accountability. Women have always been able to "exercise" the priesthood through their church leader's priesthood or husband's priesthood.
ksfisher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But it'd be helpful to not only have these women as consultants but also as team members. That's what the ward council is. Handbook 24.1Under the keys of priesthood leadership at each level, leaders counsel together for the benefit of individuals and families. Council members also plan the work of the Church pertaining to their assignments. Effective councils invite full expression from council members and unify their efforts in responding to individual, family, and organizational needs.4.4Members of the ward council strive to help individuals build testimonies, receive saving ordinances, keep covenants, and become consecrated followers of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 6:4–5). All members of the ward council have a general responsibility for the well-being of ward members. Priesthood and auxiliary leaders also have a specific responsibility to watch over and strengthen each member in their organization. Is this not being part of the team? 1
jchristopher Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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,-SmacDoes not a relief Society president exercise the bishop's priesthood?
JLHPROF Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 What does women performing ordinances in the temple have to do with being "called to be priestesses unto God and their husbands?"Secondly, what are these "higher ordinances which are not given to most members?" Women "acting" or "exercising" the priesthood is not the same as being ordained to an office or holding the priesthood keys of accountability. Women have always been able to "exercise" the priesthood through their church leader's priesthood or husband's priesthood. If you've been through the temple you should be able to answer these questions. And the higher ordinances refers to the Second Anointing, an ordinance given to a very select few men and women in the Church (and which does feature ordination of the wife - hands are laid on their heads, they are ordained to a specific office unique to women, but that has a male counterpart in the Melchezidek Priesthood.) So given all this, why they want to be Bishops and Deacons is a mystery to me. Aim higher.
rongo Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Does not a relief Society president exercise the bishop's priesthood?No. Just his patience . . . <ducking> 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 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.Your mileage may vary, but I believe the communication and the benefit both are reciprocal.
Recommended Posts