Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[rockpond]

Your mileage may vary, but I believe the communication and the benefit both are reciprocal.

 

Absolutely.  I didn't intend to imply otherwise.

[smac97]

Does not a relief Society president exercise the bishop's priesthood?

I don't think I've ever heard that. The Relief Society is delegated authority to preside in the Relief Society, but I'm not sure that amounts to the "excercise (of) the bishop's priesthood."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

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.

 

I personally don't think God communicates in human words - those are our domain. Instead I think we awaken very slowly and very gradually to divine truths.

 

I understand why others think otherwise. I'm just saying that is the conclusion I've come to

[Gray]

So who was it that appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (D&C 138:45; HC 3:387)?

 

Again, a literalist take on scripture that I don't share

Is the existence of Jesus Christ likewise dismissable?

 

I think the historical evidence for His existence is good

So there was no Isaac, or Jacob, either, right? And no Twelve Tribes?

 

The tribes existed. Some of these figures may also have existed. I'm not up to speed on that

I'm just trying to grasp the concepts you are presuming we understand (I don't think we do).

 

I'm trying to do that every day

Well, if there was no Abraham, then there is no Abrahamic Covenant, no Israel. No foundation for the Restored Gospel.

 

I don't think there needs to have been a literal Abraham for those concepts to be meaningful 

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.

 

I tend to go with the evidence, regardless of what I think the ramifications might be. In fact, my current beliefs are a (long after the fact) result of those ramifications

Unless, of course, you don't believe in Christianity in general or Mormonism in particular.

 

I identify as progressive Mormon, which is a lot like being a Reformed Jew

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 think that the stories surrounding the Nativity are unlikely to have any historical basis although they are rich in meaning

I'm trying to wrap my head around this line of reasoning, such as it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Maybe I can explain myself this way. One of the most profound parables of Jesus is that of the Good Samaritan. Even Orthodox Christians recognize that the story is not a factual story, but instead conveys deeper truths. Would the parable be any more meaningful if it turned out to have been based on a true story? I don't think so. I think literalism often tends to eclipse and even destroy some of the deeper truths conveyed by story. 

Edited March 27, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

That's what the ward council is.

 

Handbook 2

4.1

Under 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.

4.4

Members 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?

 

I suppose it would depend on how each one is run. I suppose at best women could be considered junior members of the team under this concept, which I think is an improvement over what was happening 20 years ago

[jchristopher]

No, I haven't. And I don't believe that.

Then why do you think they haven't allowed women to be ordained yet?

[rockpond]

Then why do you think they haven't allowed women to be ordained yet?

 

I think they believe that the scriptures have already given us the answer to that question.

[jchristopher]

If you already know what God wants than you really ought to ignore most of what I have to say on these threads.

Good point. But we all know, not just me. It has been laid forth in the scriptures and confirmed by modern prophets

Edited March 28, 2014 by jchristopher

[jchristopher]

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

Sorry, I work through these posts chronologically

[rockpond]

Good point. But we all know, not just me. It has been laid forth in the scriptures and conformed by modern prophets

 

CFR that "we all know..."  

 

Obviously we don't ALL know or we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If you think that you have some sort of bullet-proof set of scriptures and modern revelations that would absolutely convince everyone, then you really ought to get it published so that the OW sisters will stop wasting their time.

[Calm]

I have argued in favor of living prophets. If you want to reduce that to an absurdity and call it logical -- so be it.

But it seems strange to argue in favour of living prophets while already claiming to know or anticipate what they will say, living prophets implying continuing and new revelation including that which will be a surprise to us.  Having a road map of future revelations to come seems counterintuitive to what revelation is, imo.

[Calm]

The OW group must be doing something right. Look how many replies this thread has already.

If their sole purpose is to generate discussion, they have far exceeded that goal, imo.

 

The problem is for them whether or not that discussion has helped their actual goal of ordination of women.  That is debatable and if it has not, then they aren't "doing something right".  

[rockpond]

But it seems strange to argue in favour of living prophets while already claiming to know or anticipate what they will say, living prophets implying continuing and new revelation including that which will be a surprise to us. Having a road map of future revelations to come seems counterintuitive to what revelation is, imo.

Then the same must also be said of those who are on here proclaiming that women won't receive the priesthood. Both are prognosticating what our prophets will do and what answers will be received.

But I'm not suggesting I have a road map of future revelation. None of us do. We're on a message board making predictions based on current understanding of scripture, analysis of the past, and/or hopes for what divine interaction & worthy prayers might bring. Right?

[Calm]

Then the same must also be said of those who are on here proclaiming that women won't receive the priesthood.

 

Don't have an issue with that.

 

There are a few that come across as more than "I hope this is what happens",

Edited March 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[changed]

 

The problem is for them whether or not that discussion has helped their actual goal of ordination of women.  

I think it has harmed the goal... sort of like when you wanted to give your kids some ice-cream as a gift, but then they start demanding it and pouting about it, so you decide not to give it to them after all... it's not a gift if the recipient demands and feels entitled to it.  

[Stone holm]

I think it has harmed the goal... sort of like when you wanted to give your kids some ice-cream as a gift, but then they start demanding it and pouting about it, so you decide not to give it to them after all... it's not a gift if the recipient demands and feels entitled to it.

So now women are demanding, pouting children if they ask for access to ecclesiastical authority for their gender. I suppose the Israelites asking for freedom from the Egyptians were pouting children as well?

[smac97]

So now women are demanding, pouting children if they ask for access to ecclesiastical authority for their gender.

First, the "women" under discussion are a specific group (the OW group), not all women.

Second, they haven't asked. They have demanded. They have protested. They have waged an antagonistic PR campaign against their own church. They have aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate.

Third, they have said that they want the priesthood and "nothing less will suffice." That is profoundly childish.

 

I suppose the Israelites asking for freedom from the Egyptians were pouting children as well?

You are now suggesting that the LDS Church is akin to Egypt when it enslaved Israel, and that LDS women are akin to enslaved Israel. Are you really sure you're in a position to spout off on objectionable comparisons when you are writing stuff like this?

Moreover, the Israelites asked God for freedom. The OW group has said that they want the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice." Did the Israelites say "God, we want to be delivered out of Egypt, and nothing less will suffice," or anything even remotely like that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 28, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Don't have an issue with that.

 

There are a few that come across as more than "I hope this is what happens",

I've been rather ambivalent about the issue. I'm open to the possibility of a revelation being ordained to the priesthood, but I don't think it will happen. Not because the Brethren aren't paying attention, but rather because I just don't think it's part of the Lord's plan.

That said, the OW group's behavior has had a very souring effect on me. If the Saints were called upon to vote on this issue, I would vote against it based on the rebelliousness and profoundly unseemly behavior exhibited by the OW group.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

That said, the OW group's behavior has had a very souring effect on me. If the Saints were called upon to vote on this issue, I would vote against it based on the rebelliousness and profoundly unseemly behavior exhibited by the OW group.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, I feel like they've moved away from their original plan that, for me, seemed less rebellious.

They had, last year, simply said something to the effect of: "We are going to stand in line and ask to be admitted to the priesthood session to show that we are ready to receive the priesthood." They were clear that if/when they were denied admittance they would politely leave.

I think they've strayed quite a bit from that original plan.

[why me]

I've been rather ambivalent about the issue. I'm open to the possibility of a revelation being ordained to the priesthood, but I don't think it will happen. Not because the Brethren aren't paying attention, but rather because I just don't think it's part of the Lord's plan.

That said, the OW group's behavior has had a very souring effect on me. If the Saints were called upon to vote on this issue, I would vote against it based on the rebelliousness and profoundly unseemly behavior exhibited by the OW group.

Thanks,

-Smac

They seem to be going against paul admonishes to be of one mind. They seem to wish to sow contention in the discussion and make it a church thing and not a heavenly father thing. It is as if they believe that the lds church is a human run church and even though they can say all the mormon things or words, their actions speak otherwise. So, it is here that we must separate words from actions.

[Calm]

I think it has harmed the goal... sort of like when you wanted to give your kids some ice-cream as a gift, but then they start demanding it and pouting about it, so you decide not to give it to them after all... it's not a gift if the recipient demands and feels entitled to it.

I get the same feeling. I am hoping with the apparent change in direction they will begin to approach goals as ones everyone can get behind, to move the Church's agenda forward. Given the more global direction of the YW's board with five additional women, perhaps the global nature of ow could lend their resources to church project increasing health of children,expanding of education.

If they wish to persue women's ordination, they need step back from the line they drew and instead commit to demonstrating they are not only sincere faithful members as individuals, but as an organizationas well. As long as ow doesn't present any involment in the Church as a demonstration that this means the church accepts them as prospective members and insteads step back to the position they took as a given prematurely I suspect and that is "will the Church accept my efforts as a sincere lds desiring to serve my fellow saints to the best of my ability now."

[Calm]

Yeah, I feel like they've moved away from their original plan that, for me, seemed less rebellious.

They had, last year, simply said something to the effect of: "We are going to stand in line and ask to be admitted to the priesthood session to show that we are ready to receive the priesthood." They were clear that if/when they were denied admittance they would politely leave.

I think they've strayed quite a bit from that original plan.

You left out the crucial and if the Church admits us it means they see us as prospective elders...which drew an unnecessary line.

[mormonnewb]

I think it has harmed the goal... sort of like when you wanted to give your kids some ice-cream as a gift, but then they start demanding it and pouting about it, so you decide not to give it to them after all... it's not a gift if the recipient demands and feels entitled to it.  

 

I'm not so sure they see the priesthood as a gift from the Brethren.  They probably see it as something that has already been withheld from them too long and they are asking for what is rightly theirs.

 

For instance, Dr. King gave a speech in Detroit a few months before the March on Washington, in which he "tested" some of the lines he would make famous later that summer.  In Detroit, he didn't say, "Well, if you ever happen to think we deserve equality, we'll be happy to receive your gift."  He made a "demand" on the bank of justice.  He went further to say, "We want all of our rights, we want them here, and we want them now."  In short, he demanded and pouted for his ice cream because he felt entitled to it.

 

Perhaps, the members of OW feel the same way.  I know that I would.

Edited March 28, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Lachoneus]

I'm not so sure they see the priesthood as a gift from the Brethren.  They probably see it as something that has already been withheld from them too long and they are asking for what is rightly theirs.

Anyone who thinks they have a RIGHT to the priesthood has no idea what the priesthood is, nor how it functions.

[teddyaware]

I'm not so sure they see the priesthood as a gift from the Brethren.  They probably see it as something that has already been withheld from them too long and they are asking for what is rightly theirs.

 

For instance, Dr. King gave a speech in Detroit a few months before the March on Washington, in which he "tested" some of the lines he would make famous later that summer.  In Detroit, he didn't say, "Well, if you ever happen to think we deserve equality, we'll be happy to receive your gift."  He made a "demand" on the bank of justice.  He went further to say, "We want all of our rights, we want them here, and we want them now."  In short, he demanded and pouted for his ice cream because he felt entitled to it.

 

Perhaps, the members of OW feel the same way.  I know that I would.

Once again you superimpose the template of what the world considers to be just, true and necessary on the Church. Did it ever dawn on you that the reason why the Church has been governed this way for so long is because the Lord wants it this way? And has it ever dawned on you that there is a wisdom greater than man's that calls for different roles for men and women? I fear you are going to have a long and very frustrating ride as an ark steading Latter-day Saint who sees injustice where none exists.

Edited March 28, 2014 by teddyaware