Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

The OW women effectively shut the door to further discussion when they declared they would accept nothing less than total capitulation on the part of Church leaders. That left scarcely any other recourse than for the Church to assert its property rights and insist they do as other protesters are expected to do: occupy the legally designated free-speech zones

Edited March 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

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.

When you write the dialogue of the meeting before the meeting takes place, there is no incentive to have the meeting for those who don't like their scripted parts.

OW has not demonstrated a willingness to hear anything but "we have prayed and received a revelation that women will receive the priesthood. Since the Brethren are not in a position to give that, ant meeting would simply be leading to false expectations and thus further frustration.

Btw, OrdainWomen was all or nothing from day one. Kate Kelly hadn't even bothered to participate in Wear Pants to Church Day because she 'didn't like pants'. There has been condemnation of other feminists that are trying to make more moderate changes.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

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."

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).

 

Oh, of course I can recognize and respect that some people don't believe it.  But I did establish what I think the Church should restore and recognize:  The offices of priesthood to which women are ordained, mostly in the temple - Queens, Priestesses, Prophetesses.

 

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

 

Yes it does veer close to the temple.  And the temple shows us that women hold the priesthood.  If we would teach that openly and acknowledge that it is priesthood then  perhaps the longing for ecclesiastical priesthood would cease.

"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?

 

Not at all.  You seem to think I am a supporter of OW.  I am not and think they are mistaken.  However, I do believe that there is a female side to priesthood that has been downplayed in the modern church.  I do not support female bishops, deacons, or apostles.  I do support recognizing and teaching publicly and clearly that women can be ordained queens & priestesses by the laying on of hands.  And that those roles have specific functions.  That is what I would rather see the OW members "fighting" for.

 

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.

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

 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.

 

You have a very limited view of what priesthood is.  And you know I can't CFR temple things.  But there is MORE than enough evidence contained in the temple endowment to prove that women have priesthood independent of their husbands.  And if I could talk about temple things I would prove it conclusively.  I recommend if you want references you consult the temple.  But once again, the female offices that we know about would be Queen and Priestess to which a woman is actually ordained if you read the ceremony of the second annointing just as a man is ordained.

 

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.

 

This is referring to "ecclesiastical priesthood".  I am referring to a different kind of priesthood.  When Pres. Hinckley said women do no hold the priesthood he clearly meant ecclesiastically.  But that limits our definition of priesthood.

 

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

 

My thoughts on OD-2 & D&C 84 are similar to yours.  That they define certain priesthood roles as belonging to men.  I just hold that there is a order of priesthood, based in the temple and connected to family that they do belong to.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

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 can think of three big reasons (I think there are other reasons as well).

First, there is a process for church members to voice concerns about matters of church governance, policy, doctrine, etc. That process does not involve public demands for doctrinal changes, with concomitant declarations that "nothing less will suffice." Put another way, the OW group is fundamentally wrongheaded in its approach to this issue.

Second, the OW group is treating this issue as if it were some sort of political football, rather than a profound point of doctrine. Revelation is the order of the day, but the OW group has given no indication that they are interested in revelation. To the contrary, they have simply made a demand for what they want, and have stated that "nothing less" than getting what they want "will suffice." Reasoned discourse cannot take place in the presence of such rebellion and arrogance.

Third, I think meeting with the OW group would set a bad precedent. It would reward their willful misbehavior by letting them disregard the priesthood hierarchy of the Church, solely because they are trying to make the Church look bad. I think the Church should not capitulate to such unreasoned and unseemly behavior as we are seeing from the OW group.

I think the rancor expressed by some of the leaders of OW comes from the frustration of being ignored.

First, I am not sure they have been "ignored." The Church changed its practices by A) having women pray in General Conference, and B) broadcasting the Priesthood Session. The OW group, however, is not satisfied with this. They want the priesthood, "and nothing less will suffice."

Second, Latter-day Saints expressing "rancor" against the Church is not appropriate. It's just not.

Third, I don't think the rancor stems from the OW group being "ignored," but from them not getting what they want. It's one thing to make a humble petition, it's quite another to defy the Church, plan protests, plan a trespass, align themselves with an excommunicated apostate, and so on.

They claim they haven't shut down any dialogue because there has been no dialogue.

I would like to see what efforts they have made at "dialogue" that involved seemly behavior (as opposed to protests, trespassing, aligning with apostates, etc.).

The church claims dialogue with women but they are ignoring the most vocal women.  I'm not sure it is the best strategy.

First, the OW group does not represent "women." They represent themselves. The overwhelming majority of LDS women do not agree with the OW group.

Second, being "vocal," misbehaving, and aligning with apostates is not the way to go requesting "dialogue." To the extent someone has poisoned the well of discussion, I'd say the blame lies pretty much entirely on the side which is protesting and intentionally disrupting General Conference sessions, which is planning to defy the Church and trespass on Church property, which has aligned itself with and chosen to be led by an excommunicated apostate.

Third, the OW picked the adversarial strategy. They are the ones who have attacked the Church. You can hardly blame the Church for defending itself.

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

I disagree. I think the Church has been patient, understanding, and compassionate. I think the behavior of the OW group has been repellant and combative. For pete's sake, they elected to be lead and represented by an excommunicated apostate! Doesn't that ring any warning bells at all?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

> Oh, of course I can recognize and respect that some people don't believe it. But I did establish what I think the Church should restore and recognize:

==You have not established any such thing.

> The offices of priesthood to which women are ordained, mostly in the temple - Queens, Priestesses, Prophetesses.

==Chapter and verse, please, for the scriptures which designate these as priesthood offices.

==I can point to the verses which explain the offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, etc. But I don't think you can do the same with the above ideas.

> Yes it does veer close to the temple. And the temple shows us that women hold the priesthood.

==No, it's doesn't.

>> 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.

> This is referring to "ecclesiastical priesthood". I am referring to a different kind of priesthood.

=="A different kind of priesthood." I'll have to chew on that for a while.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

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?

 

The Biblical ordination of women to priesthood roles 

[Gray]

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?

 

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but the principle is the same. And most importantly, "sons" does not exclude daughters. 

[MiserereNobis]

CFR.

 

(everyone else is doing it, I just didn't want to be left out)

[why me]

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.

 

 

 

Of course this is overlooked in the discussion. But the priesthood was given to men by john the baptist and the three apostles. It seemed to have been a male thing. And i don't think that emma was complaining about it. All seemed to assume that it was a male calling.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Biblical ordination of women to priesthood roles 

What Biblical ordination?

[Gray]

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.

 

Did Christ not ordain any women? 

[why me]

CFR.

 

(everyone else is doing it, I just didn't want to be left out)

The catholics have their own OW movement too. But the catholic organization doesn't get much play in the news. Maybe it is because that the 'pressure' has been around for awhile and the media is a little tired of it. Actually, most people I would assume don't really care or understand the 'mormon' ordain movement. It is just a blip in the news machine.

[bluebell]

The Biblical ordination of women to priesthood roles 

 

Can i get the reference for that please, as i'm not aware of any scriptures which state that a woman was ordained to the priesthood and would love to know which ones you are talking about.  

[bluebell]

Did Christ not ordain any women? 

 

There is no scriptural record that He did.  Can you provide any?

[why me]

Did Christ not ordain any women? 

This is another point. The twelve apostles were men. And although he did have women around him, he never thought to include them in the last supper. Not even his mother was invited.

Edited March 18, 2014 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

The catholics have their own OW movement too. But the catholic organization doesn't get much play in the news. Maybe it is because that the 'pressure' has been around for awhile and the media is a little tired of it. Actually, most people I would assume don't really care or understand the 'mormon' ordain movement. It is just a blip in the news machine.

 

The Catholic Church is so big we have a movement for almost everything that is considered anti-doctrinal or heretical, and sometimes those groups are even led by priests!

[why me]

The Catholic Church is so big we have a movement for almost everything that is considered anti-doctrinal or heretical, and sometimes those groups are even led by priests!

But since media is having a love affair with the new pope, these movements will not get much attention. In the past, the media had some news articles about them. The mormon church is not that well known and so, the OW movement will get some play at the conference protest and then disappear until the next conference. The media is really not that interested. Now if Romney were president the OW movement would get much more play in the media as would the lds church and its conservative moral and social stances.

[Bikeemikey]

This is a pretty downright dumb thread.

A better idea would be a thread exclusively for women where we got to read with out commenting.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

The Catholic Church is so big we have a movement for almost everything that is considered anti-doctrinal or heretical, and sometimes those groups are even led by priests!

 

I've seen that here in Mexico.  There is a group called Catolicadas that seem to be against the Church on major doctrinal points like abortion and gay marriage, but they consider themselves Catholic "a su manera"

[JLHPROF]

> Oh, of course I can recognize and respect that some people don't believe it. But I did establish what I think the Church should restore and recognize:

==You have not established any such thing.

 

I will establish it AGAIN for you: the Church should clearly teach its female membership of all ages what was taught and emphasized to the them in the early days of the Church and less so today - that they can become Queens, Priestesses, and eventually Goddesses and Heavenly Mothers. If we taught this more openly perhaps it might make a difference in this debate.

> The offices of priesthood to which women are ordained, mostly in the temple - Queens, Priestesses, Prophetesses.

==Chapter and verse, please, for the scriptures which designate these as priesthood offices.

 

Completely irrelevant.  The temple ordinances are as much "scripture" in Mormonism as the four standard works.

==I can point to the verses which explain the offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, etc. But I don't think you can do the same with the above ideas.

> Yes it does veer close to the temple. And the temple shows us that women hold the priesthood.

==No, it's doesn't.

 

Oh, it absolutely does, and I could prove it quite easily but that would be posting temple content.  I think you need to review certain aspects of the temple.  And perhaps to read John Taylor's Origin and Destiny of Woman wherein he teaches:

 

 

 Now crowns, thrones, exaltations and dominions are in reserve for thee in the eternal worlds, and the way is opened for thee to return back into the presence of thy Heavenly Father, if thou wilt only abide by and walk in a celestial law, fulfill the designs of thy Creator and hold out to the end that when mortality is laid in the tomb, you may go down to your grave in peace, arise in glory, and receive your everlasting reward in the resurrection of the just, along with thy head and husband. 

Thou wilt be permitted to pass by the Gods and angels who guard the gates, on onward, upward to thy exaltation in a celestial world among the Gods.

To be a priestess queen upon thy Heavenly Father's throne, and a glory to thy husband and offspring, to bear the souls of men, to people other worlds (as thou dist bear their tabernacles in mortality) while eternity goes and eternity comes; and if you will receive it, lady, this is eternal life. 

 

>> 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.

> This is referring to "ecclesiastical priesthood". I am referring to a different kind of priesthood.

=="A different kind of priesthood." I'll have to chew on that for a while.

 

You do that.  And remember what Joseph Smith said - "At two o'clock I met the members of the "Female Relief Society," and after presiding at the admission of many new members, gave a lecture on the Priesthood, showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings and gifts of the Priesthood, and that the signs should follow them"

and

"The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal  authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood."  (Ironic naming the priesthood of the temple "patriarchal" when women receive the exact same blessings and ordinances therein).

Edited March 18, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Can you point to the canonical revelation that states that for revelation to be valid it must "exist canonically"?

 

The answer is no, but I didn't claim that there was. However it is often reasoned that the 1886 revelation on polygamy was invalid because it was never canonized. 

 

Can you point to any claimed revelation on this matter, canonical or otherwise?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Gray

[jaxenro]

So official cmmunication to OW:

 

"Ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His Church "

 

seems pretty clear to me

[Calm]

CFR.

 

(everyone else is doing it, I just didn't want to be left out)

ARe you this fun in real life?

[Calm]

The Catholic Church is so big we have a movement for almost everything that is considered anti-doctrinal or heretical, and sometimes those groups are even led by priests!

Whenever we Mormons start thinking we have it tough, we should look at what you Catholics get to put up with.

[Gray]

 

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.

 

I responded in my previous post (see above). But note the caveat: "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost." I agree with that scripture completely.