Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Tacenda]

lest any confusion exists because this was attached to my scolding of whyme, I personally do not believe such a protest is "what it takes"for women to be heard and in fact I think their use of political means is adding a great deal of noise to the discussion making it more difficult for many other women of more moderate position to be heard. I think the extremes of both sides would do well with a time out where they were required to actually listen and not just twiddle their thumbs until the timer rings and they can start shouting (metaphorically speaking so far) again.

Nope, I know you aren't in cahoots with the way they are protesting, I'm not too thrilled with it either.  But just as the blacks did with civil rights, they protested in ways that didn't sit well with people either.

 

I would love to hear of the better way that will enable women to come together for change.  Some changes could be work in administration such as clerks, or help hold your baby while they bless them, help with the Sacrament in some way.  Have some input in some of these Priestly duties.  Lay our hands on our children's head along side our husbands.  In many ways we have gone backward, where women at one time did this to other women and probably to their children.  Give some of these women that are agitating, a forum to speak.  Meet with the presidency and give voice.  Some of these women feel they are just being patted on the head and sent away somewhat, from what I can see.

 

What could be some things women would like to do in the church that they aren't already doing?  Would it be good to discuss these in a non agitating way?  How about on this board, have any women on this board thought of things they'd like to do?  Would it be ok to have men be Primary Presidents and women Elders Quorum President's?  Or have I gone completely batty. 

 

There are many women who have felt stifled in their church life.  I've not had this happen to me, but when I really start to think about it, then I can think of some things that I'd have like to have done, like the blessing of my children, or my mom.  I would have love to have been apart of that, meaning in the circle.  Or holding my baby in the circle, sounds beautiful to me. 

[Calm]

. For women to get the priesthood, it will take a revelation. Most mormon women know this rather well. As do the men.

 

So, I do question the attitude of the women who will protest outside the temple grounds about this issue. Prayer just may work better for their cause.

It makes sense if they believe the tradition of male only priesthood is so strong that leaders won't even consider praying about it without being pressured to do so.

But adding an ultimatum definitely betrays a lack of understanding of human nature in that it conveys the message "we will protest until you sincerely pray for a revelation and we won't believe you have sincerely prayed until you get the same message we believe we've gotten" (though I have not read anything where a OW leader has made the claim of praying about actually, I hope they have, but have to wonder why it isn't mentioned much, if at all).

There is no incentive to change if someone sets things up that they will keep hitting you over the head with a baseball bat even if you do positive things and they will only stop if you do one, very extreme behaviour. This eliminates all reason for small changes as they will still be punished no matter what throughout the process of change and extreme behaviour changes will not appear without a process, they must be shaped and approached over time.

[DJBrown]

Please cite chapter and verse. I'd like to read this revelation that bans women from the priesthood. Consider this a formal "CFR"

 

Doctrine and Covenants 8r:33-34

 

"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.  They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God."

 

I think it is pretty difficult for females to become the sons of Moses and Aaron.

[Gray]

How about you first answer my CFR from post #126:

 

Unless and until you answer that, I submit that your CFR is moot.

 

If you'll look to your D&C, you'll see that new revelation is voted on and canonized, and added to the D&C. 

 

Can you point me toward any revelation banning women from the priesthood, canonized or not? 

[Gray]

Doctrine and Covenants 8r:33-34

 

"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.  They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God."

 

I think it is pretty difficult for females to become the sons of Moses and Aaron.

 

For a long time we used masculine pronouns to refer to both men and women. That doesn't mean masculine pronouns were excluding women:

 

Example: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

 

Is it only men who will be punished for their own sins?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I really don't see the hubbub over this.

 

Any person that has ever gone through the temple knows that women have the priesthood powers too.  The only difference is that they tend to be more inward and nurturing, whereas the priesthood powers of men tend to be outward and that is shown through the CALLINGS AND OFFICES that the men have in the eccleastical structure known as priesthood.

 

I put the difference between the two in my latest blog post, which happens to be the blog in my sig line.

 

Women are NOT banned from the Priesthood.  The Offices of said priesthood however are given to men.  Such is consistent with Scripture.

[Gray]

Here's a good place to start.  

 

And now the next part of this discussion with be a demand for prooftexting, which the pro-OW folks will find subjectively insufficient.  Watch for it, folks!  It's a comin'!

 

Now, please cite chapter and verse the revelation which prohibits consumption of pornography.  That's a CFR.

 

Also, please cite chapter and verse the revelation which prohibits the recreational use of heroin.  That's a CFR as well.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

CFR not met. None of your citations banned women from the priesthood. 

 

You can't CFR me on claims I didn't make. But consider, no one thinks a specific revelation is needed to give Germans the priesthood. Why is one needed in the case of women when the Bible already establishes women in priesthood roles?

[Gray]

I also think that the root is in the organization of the priesthood during Joseph's and Oliver's time. It was given to men by men at the exclusion of women. I would think that the beginning of the church would have women ordained into the priesthood, starting with emma or one of the wives of the 11 witnesses.

Joseph Smith also rode horses and drank alcohol. I don't think we can use what was practiced and say that is what is the will of God. The problem is women were not seen as equal to men in the 19th century. Their practice obviously followed from culture. 

Edited March 18, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

I really don't see the hubbub over this.

 

Any person that has ever gone through the temple knows that women have the priesthood powers too.  The only difference is that they tend to be more inward and nurturing, whereas the priesthood powers of men tend to be outward and that is shown through the CALLINGS AND OFFICES that the men have in the eccleastical structure known as priesthood.

 

I put the difference between the two in my latest blog post, which happens to be the blog in my sig line.

 

Women are NOT banned from the Priesthood.  The Offices of said priesthood however are given to men.  Such is consistent with Scripture.

 

Consistent with patriarchal culture, maybe, but not scripture. 

[DJBrown]

For a long time we used masculine pronouns to refer to both men and women. That doesn't mean masculine pronouns were excluding women:

 

Example: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

 

Is it only men who will be punished for their own sins?

 

Can you provide an example where this applies to the pronoun, "son?"

 

There are plenty of examples in the scriptures of using both "sons" and "daughters."  I cannot think of one instance where "son" is used to apply to both daughters and sons.  Can you?

[bluebell]

Consistent with patriarchal culture, maybe, but not scripture. 

 

This is an interesting declaration and not one that i've heard before.

 

What scriptures having to do with priesthood ordination are not consistent with men being ordain and not women?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I noticed a poster that said that the Church started with male priesthood based on the fact that the Three and Eight Witnesses were men.

 

As were the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventies, not to mention bishops and stake presidents.

 

In the Bible, once again we see men being called to the apostleship and while women have access to the same spiritual gifts as men do, the ordination always has rested with the men.

 

Logical construct.

 

Equally a logical construct the promises given to men that they would be kings and priests, repeated four times in the Scriptures in the Bible, to the most high God.

 

Now, I pray thee, what does the same promise say about women?  Don't answer here, but PM me, if you have it.

 

Go to the Temple.  Understand that promise.  Then tell me how priesthood power is shown, in BOTH SEXES.

 

Nothing sexist about that.

[bluebell]

Joseph Smith also rode horses and drank alcohol. I don't think we can use what was practiced and say that is what is the will of God. The problem is women were not seen as equal to men in the 19th century. Their practice obviously followed from culture. 

 

Christ viewed women and men as equal.  I would be interested in hearing why you believe He did not ordain any women?  Obviously cultural norms cannot be the reason, as He frequently opposed them.

[Calm]

In those words exactly? Heavens no. Who would dare say that? Telling the women to take their "protest" to the other side of the street is a subtle way of saying it without saying it.

But is it not true? If the fairer sex would quietly submit we wouldn't be having this discussion or contention. Men would not be speaking up for women's equality causing all of these problems and headaches.

I disagree. We are talking about a particular time and place and whether it is appropriate to protest there and then. It is not a global attempt to shut down all comment.

One might feel it to be inappropriate to have a protest over allowing gay leaders outside a cubscout meeting where it interferes with the fun and enjoyment of the boys participating, but not feel it is inappropriate to write letters to media or even protest at the national headquarters.

Priesthood Session is a sacred event for men. If one respects and desires to participate in that sacred event, it seems contrary and just wrong to try to disrupt it for others until they allow you to join them. I would be more impressed of the quality of desire and the value placed upon it if I saw a high level of respect being exhibited as well as wholehearted support to make the event as sacred and spiritual as possible for those given the privilege already?

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

CFR not met. None of your citations banned women from the priesthood.

See, folks? Did I call that or what? ("And now the next part of this discussion with be a demand for prooftexting, which the pro-OW folks will find subjectively insufficient.")

I'm curious: Is ordaining nonmembers to the priesthood okay in your book? What about inanimate objects? What about infants?

 

You can't CFR me on claims I didn't make.

An elegant dodge. But you're right.

 

But consider, no one thinks a specific revelation is needed to give Germans the priesthood.

Well, not quite. OD-2 states that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color." "All worthy male members" was a clarification/removal of the pre-1978 restriction on the priesthood. OD-2 extended the priesthood, but only to "all worthy male members." That would include German males.

 

Why is one needed in the case of women when the Bible already establishes women in priesthood roles?

First, I don't think the Bible establishes such a thing. Some may interpret the Bible that way, but the Brethren haven't.

Second, what are your thoughts about exegetical interpretation? The Word of Wisdom does not specifically prohibit meth or heroin, but no reasonable and observant Latter-day Saint would argue that the WoW does not prohibit such things. It seems to me that the ordination of women to the priesthood is something of a novelty. If so, then authoritative exegesis from the Brethren may be all we're going to get (over and above passages like D&C 84 and OD-2). What are your thoughts about that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 18, 2014 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

This topic could go away so easily if the Church would restore and recognize the female priesthood that was established already.

 

1. There should be no doubt that endowed women already have priesthood.

2. Women can be ordained as Queens, Priestesses, Prophetesses.  Why not allow these offices to function as they once did?

3. Why do women fight for male offices and roles in the priesthood instead of fighting for restoration of the female offices roles?

 

In the early days of the church women gave Mother's blessings, held blessing meetings, and to this day still perform ordinances for each other in the temple by authority (which men are not allowed to do).

I think this whole debacle could be resolved if the female priesthood was brought out of the shadows and allowed to function in its prescribed roles.  Or am I naively assuming that they would cease coveting the male offices if this happened?  Would they still insist on being able to baptize and bless the sacrament?  I don't see men petitioning to perform Mothers blessings or womens initatory work.

 

There is NO revelation "banning" women from holding priesthood because they do hold priesthood.  The problem is they want the offices designated for men instead of the offices designated for women, and there are ample scriptures that designate certain offices (Bishop, Deacon, etc) as male offices.

Edited March 18, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

If you'll look to your D&C, you'll see that new revelation is voted on and canonized, and added to the D&C.

Can you point me toward any revelation banning women from the priesthood, canonized or not?

Not responsive.

Please address the question that was put to you.

Your question has already been addressed here by others.

 

But as I already said, your CFR is moot unless and until you responsively address mine -- which you haven't yet.

 

Again, show me the canonized revelation (chapter and verse) that states a revelation is not valid unless it is canonized.

 

Edited to add:

 

But since you tell me to look to my D&C, I will cite this verse:

 

And whatsoever they [elders of the Church] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 68:4

 

Contrary to your implied assumption, this states that what a prophet says when moved upon by the Holy Ghost carries the imprimatur of scripture and the will, mind, word and voice of the Lord. It doesn't say it has to be canonized. It doesn't even say it has to be written down.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Consistent with patriarchal culture, maybe, but not scripture.

More insinuating of bigotry.

 

Civility is a two-way street.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[EllenMaksoud]

Ellen, I wasn't even remotely suggesting that you have an ounce of racial bias. I was simply demonstrating how incomprehensible the "my plate is already full" response is to someone from my tradition.

As for men being "so much better at certain things," I'll just have to be left to wonder about those things, unless you're referring to reaching the top shelf, lifting furniture and killing spiders,

Spiders, yes that's the one !    I also hate crawling around under tractors, getting my hair full of dust from the fields, and turning away those Mormon Missionaries   NOT!

[Scott Lloyd]

See, folks? Did I call that or what? ("And now the next part of this discussion with be a demand for prooftexting, which the pro-OW folks will find subjectively insufficient.")

I'm curious: Is ordaining nonmembers to the priesthood okay in your book? What about inanimate objects? What about infants?

 

 

Yep. You definitely called it.

 

But I'm not surprised.

[Calm]

.  Give some of these women that are agitating, a forum to speak.  Meet with the presidency and give voice.  Some of these women feel they are just being patted on the head and sent away somewhat, from what I can see.

 

At the very least a decent effort needs to be made to find out what has and is going on before making judgments and diving in feet first.

There are talks going on with the leadership. There are forums where potential changes are being discussed. There have been changes already made that aren't being paid attention to by local leaders that could be worked on by women encouraging their leaders to do them and local women leaders doing their part (by showing up at meetings they are supposed to be in or have the option).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This topic could go away so easily if the Church would restore and recognize the female priesthood that was established already.

To restore something means that it was lost. And you would have great difficulty showing that it was lost at some point in the past. I can find no evidence of female bishops or female apostles, etc. There is nothing to restore. Total wishful thinking here.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[smac97]

This topic could go away so easily if the Church would restore and recognize the female priesthood that was established already.

I don't think we can proceed on this presumption. You have not established that which you think the Church needs to "restore and recognize."

 

1. There should be no doubt that endowed women already have priesthood.

I recognize and respect the fact that some people believe that women are ordained to the priesthood in the sense under discussion.

Can you recognize and respect that some people - including the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, don't believe this?

If you cannot recognize this, then discussion with you is futile. If you *can* recognize this, then you must retract your statement that "[t]here should be no doubt" about an issue that clearly *is* in doubt (and about which you and yours are in the distinct minority).

 

2. Women can be ordained as Queens, Priestesses, Prophetesses.  Why not allow these offices to function as they once did?

An interesting question, but one which veers too close to the temple.

 

3. Why do women fight for male offices and roles in the priesthood instead of fighting for restoration of the female offices roles?

"Fighting for," huh? Interesting choice of words. Against whom do you propose that LDS women "fight?" The only possible answer is "The Church."

So you are advocating that LDS women "fight" against the LDS Church on this issue, is that correct?

 

In the early days of the church women gave Mother's blessings, held blessing meetings, and to this day still perform ordinances for each other in the temple by authority (which men are not allowed to do).

Okay, then you should have no problem establishing by fact, rather than by inference and innuendo, that women were ordained to the priesthood. CFR, please.

 

I think this whole debacle could be resolved if the female priesthood was brought out of the shadows and allowed to function in its prescribed roles.

CFR, please, on the scriptural "prescribed roles" for women in the priesthood.

 

Or am I naively assuming that they would cease coveting the male offices if this happened?

CFR, please on the "female" offices in the priesthood (if there are "male offices," then there must also be "female offices"). Scriptural chapter and verse, please.

 

Would they still insist on being able to baptize and bless the sacrament?  I don't see men petitioning to perform Mothers blessings or womens initatory work.

Nor are men petitioning to attend the Women's Session of General Conference.

 

There is NO revelation "banning" women from holding priesthood because they do hold priesthood.

There is revelation limiting the priesthood. And no, women do not hold the priesthood in the sense under discussion. Mormon.org has this question in the FAQ:

 

Why don’t women hold the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How do Mormon women lead in the Church?

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

“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. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith, called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world... They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world...

“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.”

So here we have you saying that women "do hold priesthood," and we also have the Church's website quoting President Hinckley saying that women "do not hold the priesthood."

If I have to choose between listening to you versus listening to President Hinckley, I choose the latter.

 

The problem is they want the offices designated for men instead of the offices designated for women, and there are ample scriptures that designate certain offices (Bishop, Deacon, etc) as male offices.

What are your thoughts about OD-2 and D&C 84?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 18, 2014 by smac97

[mtomm]

I disagree. We are talking about a particular time and place and whether it is appropriate to protest there and then. It is not a global attempt to shut down all comment.

One might feel it to be inappropriate to have a protest over allowing gay leaders outside a cubscout meeting where it interferes with the fun and enjoyment of the boys participating, but not feel it is inappropriate to write letters to media or even protest at the national headquarters.

Priesthood Session is a sacred event for men. If one respects and desires to participate in that sacred event, it seems contrary and just wrong to try to disrupt it for others until they allow you to join them. I would be more impressed of the quality of desire and the value placed upon it if I saw a high level of respect being exhibited as well as wholehearted support to make the event as sacred and spiritual as possible for those given the privilege already?

 

I don't disagree with this.  But to pretend that the sentiment expressed in my first comment is not real is not realistic either.  We don't use that exact phrase anymore but it is certainly implied by some comments that I've seen.  The comments are not even by men but by women.  

 

I also wonder why someone (I don't know who that should be) hasn't arranged a meeting to meet with a the OW women during the priesthood session and avoid the need for the statement or inviting them off of church property.  I think the rancor expressed by some of the leaders of OW comes from the frustration of being ignored.  They claim they haven't shut down any dialogue because there has been no dialogue.  The church claims dialogue with women but they are ignoring the most vocal women.  I'm not sure it is the best strategy.  

I guess what I am saying is that I don't think either side is handling the situation ideally.  

[JLHPROF]

To restore something means that it was lost. And you would have great difficulty showing that it was lost at some point in the past. I can find no evidence of female bishops or female apostles, etc. There is nothing to restore. Total wishful thinking here.

 

I agree.  I think you misunderstood.  I didn't say restore female apostles or bishops.  I said ordain queens, priestesses, prophetesses and other established female priesthood offices that are rarely if ever seen in the church.