Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[why me]

It should put it to rest. This makes it pretty clear too:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church...The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise" (Gordon B. Hinckley).

This quotation may not be too convincing. However, I think that the better argument is the structural change within the church if this change happened. At the moment the way certain meetings are held and the way certain other groupings are organized now are defined by priesthood. So, we have relief society and we have priesthood meetings. We have young women's and we have young men's organizations. Both organizations stress the importance of the gospel and the importance of attempting to be the best one can be in their gender roles in the church.

 

With the ordination of girls and women, this would all have to change. No more separate meetings, all are inclusive...no more visiting teaching where women visit other women...all are home teachers...girls will become deacons, teachers, priests and young women will become elders.

 

And as such many women who are now members will be a little confused and disappointed...perhaps even lose their testimony because their role in the church will be turned upside down. And then, all will become unlike unto men in the church since relief society will be abolished and its values. Unless of course, priesthood meetings take on the role of being a relief society with lesson to stress that point.

 

And then we will need to overcome the fact that the Community of Christ got their first. I can only imagine their glee at this...and rubbing it in our face in a christlike way.

Edited March 29, 2014 by why me

[Stone holm]

I agree. See my post above and my subsequent post in the thread stone holm just started to vent about this.

Did not start it to vent, it just struck me as an interesting question. Must have pushed some buttons though because it sure brought out the personal attacks.

[Bernard Gui]

Couple of questions:

 

1. If sons of Aaron have a legal right to preside in the Aaronic Priesthood, do daughters of Aaron have the same right?

2. If men were foreordained to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, were women also foreordained to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood?
 

Scriptural evidence, please, if you answer either in the affirmative.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did not start it to vent, it just struck me as an interesting question. Must have pushed some buttons though because it sure brought out the personal attacks.

You use inflammatory phrasing like "groveling sycophant" and you don't expect that to push some buttons? Color me dubious.

[cdowis]

This quotation may not be too convincing. However, I think that the better argument is the structural change within the church if this change happened. At the moment the way certain meetings are held and the way certain other groupings are organized now are defined by priesthood. So, we have relief society and we have priesthood meetings. We have young women's and we have young men's organizations. Both organizations stress the importance of the gospel and the importance of attempting to be the best one can be in their gender roles in the church.

 

With the ordination of girls and women, this would all have to change. No more separate meetings, all are inclusive...no more visiting teaching where women visit other women...all are home teachers...girls will become deacons, teachers, priests and young women will become elders.

 

 

 

Temple ordinances would have to be re-done for all of the females.

[Stone holm]

You use inflammatory phrasing like "groveling sycophant" and you don't expect that to push some buttons? Color me dubious.

Sycophant fits it pretty accurately, groveling might be a bit over the top, but really why would we ascribe enjoyment of behavior to God, that even mortals consider repulsive? It seems to stem from behaviors that tyrannical monarchs expected and received from their subjects in early times, but we should find simply disgusting in these times. A type of faux piety, like the person who excessively claims to be a sinner in need of repentance, which ironically may be true, but not for the reasons claimed, but for false humility.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sycophant fits it pretty accurately, groveling might be a bit over the top, but really why would we ascribe enjoyment of behavior to God, that even mortals consider repulsive? It seems to stem from behaviors that tyrannical monarchs expected and received from their subjects in early times, but we should find simply disgusting in these times. A type of faux piety, like the person who excessively claims to be a sinner in need of repentance, which ironically may be true, but not for the reasons claimed, but for false humility.

Is a "thy will, not mine be done" approach to Deity what you consider "false humility"? Do you really think faithful believers regard that as "simply disgusting in these times"? If so, what does <true> humility look like to you?

[Storm Rider]

Sycophant fits it pretty accurately, groveling might be a bit over the top, but really why would we ascribe enjoyment of behavior to God, that even mortals consider repulsive? It seems to stem from behaviors that tyrannical monarchs expected and received from their subjects in early times, but we should find simply disgusting in these times. A type of faux piety, like the person who excessively claims to be a sinner in need of repentance, which ironically may be true, but not for the reasons claimed, but for false humility.

 

The sycophant at whose alter is an interesting question.  Tell me it is not more enjoyable to paint the other as the real problem for society.  

[why me]

Temple ordinances would have to be re-done for all of the females.

Women members would go through shock therapy and I am not sure just how many would survive the shock.

 

I would call Sister Kelly to be the first female stake president to see just how she balances work, church calling and small children. And this would be a huge problem for a church which encourages moms to be home with their children as much as possible. Which is perhaps one reason why females may not be getting the priesthood so soon. I can't imagine the wife as elder's quorum president and the husband as bishop and the couple have small children.

[Wants2know]

Nope.  I'm far too politically incorrect to ever be in PR.  But you give them far too much credit if you think that an apostate group being forcibly escorted off church property by the police would garner support among members.  As for the general public, well, the church stance on SSM marriage has led to PR issues and the church really doesn't care what the public think.

You really see them as apostates?  That is such a strong word and in my mind means hate for a religion.  I don't see them that way.  

[Wants2know]

Women members would go through shock therapy and I am not sure just how many would survive the shock.

 

I would call Sister Kelly to be the first female stake president to see just how she balances work, church calling and small children. And this would be a huge problem for a church which encourages moms to be home with their children as much as possible. Which is perhaps one reason why females may not be getting the priesthood so soon. I can't imagine the wife as elder's quorum president and the husband as bishop and the couple have small children.

Women balance these roles all the time.  

[Bikeemikey]

Women members would go through shock therapy and I am not sure just how many would survive the shock.

I would call Sister Kelly to be the first female stake president to see just how she balances work, church calling and small children. And this would be a huge problem for a church which encourages moms to be home with their children as much as possible. Which is perhaps one reason why females may not be getting the priesthood so soon. I can't imagine the wife as elder's quorum president and the husband as bishop and the couple have small children.

This makes no sense.

We have bishopric members who's wives are relief society presidents and young women's presidents.

This is the same as the example you provided above.

As for Kate Kelly being a stake president, have her husband watch the kids.

Also, husbands are also encourages to be home as much as possible.

[JLHPROF]

You really see them as apostates?  That is such a strong word and in my mind means hate for a religion.  I don't see them that way.  

 

Apostate officially means to abandon ones religion.  It's debatable whether they've done that by disagreeing with tenets of the religion they profess to follow.

 

The Church official definition has always been "When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy."  If these women have turned away from the principles by which priesthood operates in favour of their own beliefs on an issue then they are in a state of apostsay.

Edited March 29, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Bikeemikey]

Apostate officially means to abandon ones religion. It's debatable whether they've done that by disagreeing with tenets of the religion they profess to follow.

The Church official definition has always been "When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy." If these women have turned away from the principles by which priesthood operates in favour of their own beliefs on an issue then they are in a state of apostsay.

If... Apostasy or lack there of is not a matter for general debate... The church will inform us what constitutes a state of apostasy. The prophet and local church leaders will inform us through discipline.

The church leaders and prophet have not done that yet so those claiming the OW are in a state of apostasy are saying so contrary to the position of the church.

Funnily enough they are also saying those in OW are in apostasy because they are making claims contrary to the position of the church.

That was fun

Edited March 29, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[stemelbow]

Is a "thy will, not mine be done" approach to Deity what you consider "false humility"? Do you really think faithful believers regard that as "simply disgusting in these times"? If so, what does <true> humility look like to you?

 

The question arises is the person doing God's will or the will of someone who only thinks he's speaking for God? 

 

It can also be seen as humble to seek out God in all sorts of places.  Try to learn His truth and will from many sources, including personal inspiration and revelation.  This may in the end, cause one to question the standard tradition or concept from the Church, but perhaps the Church is wrong.

[Calm]

Apostate officially means to abandon ones religion.  It's debatable whether they've done that by disagreeing with tenets of the religion they profess to follow.

 

The Church official definition has always been "When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy."  If these women have turned away from the principles by which priesthood operates in favour of their own beliefs on an issue then they are in a state of apostsay.

Personally I think Church leadership is in a better position to judge the status of these women than you are and I have seen no hint from them that they are considered apostate even in their disagreement:

 

We invite you, as our sisters, to participate with women everywhere in the parallel meeting for women and girls on March 29, and hope you will join us in a spirit of love and harmony.

 

Even so, these are our sisters and we want them among us, and hope they will find [the] peace and joy we all seek in the Gospel of Jesus Christ

 

 

[Bikeemikey]

Personally I think Church leadership is in a better position to judge the status of these women than you are and I have seen no hint from them that they are considered apostate even in their disagreement:

Great post!

[omni]

Anybody know the record for the longest thread? This has gotta be up there...

[why me]

Women balance these roles all the time.  

I don't think so. How often would a woman bishop be able to do her calling and be a mom at the same time? And we need to remember that the relief society is there to help now. But when females have the priesthood that organization is history. No need for relief society since all would be in priesthood meeting.

[why me]

This makes no sense.

We have bishopric members who's wives are relief society presidents and young women's presidents.

This is the same as the example you provided above.

As for Kate Kelly being a stake president, have her husband watch the kids.

Also, husbands are also encourages to be home as much as possible.

However, the relief society is there to help women in need and this would mean baby sitting, cooking for those who lack the time or who can't cook or who need help with cleaning etc.  The relief society's slogan *charity never failth would be history since we would have no relief society...nor would we have visiting teachers to help out. As any bishop would tell you...the calling drains time not to mention the time spent in regular work.

 

Have you ever spoken to women who work? Many feel guilty about being away from their children even during regular work. Not to mention the time it takes to be bishop, stake president or elder's quorum president.

[why me]

Also, husbands are also encourages to be home as much as possible.

That's right. However, if we have women bishops and men stake presidents and it just so happens that these callings on in one family, who watches the kids? Or elder's quorum president and bishop? Or how about a male bishop and his two female counselors...how would that go over with the wife? Or a female bishop and her two male counselors? Or how about the female bishop meeting with her male counselor at church alone? Temptation temptation temptation....and jealousy. Such is an aspect of human nature.

 

Would you mind if your bishop wife would be meeting with her two rather good looking male counselors on a wednesday night? Would the church even allow such a meeting?

Edited March 29, 2014 by why me

[omni]

I don't think so. How often would a woman bishop be able to do her calling and be a mom at the same time? 

 

So instead we give that job exclusively to men who are already away from their families for 40-50 hrs/wk?  I've heard that same excuse used many times when women run for political office or take full-time positions in the work force.

 

And we need to remember that the relief society is there to help now. But when females have the priesthood that organization is history. No need for relief society since all would be in priesthood meeting.

 

 

I don't understand why you couldn't divide up the men and women for the third hour as we do now?  Seems like we're just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing whatever sticks...

[Bikeemikey]

That's right. However, if we have women bishops and men stake presidents and it just so happens that these callings on in one family, who watches the kids? Or elder's quorum president and bishop? Or how about a male bishop and his two female counselors...how would that go over with the wife? Or a female bishop and her two male counselors? Or how about the female bishop meeting with her male counselor at church alone? Temptation temptation temptation....and jealousy. Such is an aspect of human nature.

Would you mind if your bishop wife would be meeting with her two rather good looking male counselors on a wednesday night? Would the church even allow such a meeting?

I'm sorry but I find this line of thinking very strange.

My wife is a very talented graphic designer and photographer. She frequently takes trips from VT to NYC with "good look men". She even stays overnight, sometimes multiple nights.

Should I stop this? I also don't feel jealousy, I feel grateful that she is talented and able to contribute to our families financial stability while doing something she is talented at and likes.

As for the rest of your concerns they are practical and not doctrinal at all. You can have a gender neutral policy of only calling one adult from any family to a calling that has a large service burden. Sometimes it might be the man, sometimes the women.

However, historically the church has never really much concerned itself with whether a family can cope with heavy service demands. Just look at all the men who were called on missions and left their wife (or multiple wives) and tribe of kids and went halfway across the world to serve in the church. If we are faithful The Lord will provide was always the idea.

More recently it seems the church tries to find a more reasonable balance but that has not always been the case.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[why me]

So instead we give that job exclusively to men who are already away from their families for 40-50 hrs/wk?  I've heard that same excuse used many times when women run for political office or take full-time positions in the work force.

 

 

 

Would it be better if we allowed the father and the mother to be away doing church callings at the same time...callings that take up much time away from the family? We need to remember that the relief society would disappear. No women's organization to help women in need and no visiting teachers. The gender roles would be neutralized...

 

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/parenting_roles/value-of-stay-at-home-moms.aspx

 

Who is best suited for the young child to be at home? Dad or Mom?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389797/Children-perform-better-mother-stays-home.html

 

The whole idea of taking women away from the home would be a contradiction for the church and leave the church open to attack when it claims to be a family oriented church.

[Calm]

"We need to remember that the relief society would disappear"

No we don't. That is one possibility, but it is not a requirement. It would be easy enough to meet together and then split up just as they do now into age groups more or less and just add a gender division as well. Those who want ordination generally are not demanding men and women do everything together. It is a relatively simple concept to blend somethings and keep others separate.

And it would be easy enough to remove mothers with young children from the list of eligible choices just as they do for seminary teachers. There are a number of callings that have restrictions based on family status and age in the Church, this is nothing novel.

Edited March 29, 2014 by calmoriah