Ordain Women Group Prohibited From Protesting On Church Property

[Calm]

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

You need to pay more attention, why me:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/ozy-catholic-church-role-of-women/5832233/

[Gray]

More insinuating of bigotry.

 

Civility is a two-way street.

 

I've try very hard to be civil, but of course I can't control what people choose to take offense at. My apologies if I've been ineffective at being civil. 

[Gray]

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?

 

 

I'm not sure comparing women to infants or objects is really forwarding your cause. 

[Gray]

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.

 

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

 

Presumably OD-2 was not needed to give German males the priesthood.

 

It's not really a matter of interpreting the Bible. It's a matter of whether or not you think the Bible recorded events accurately in regards to female leadership.

 

I think the spirit of the law is a good rule of thumb for anything from the Word of Wisdom to ordination. The spirit giveth life. I'm not a scriptural literalist, but it's clear that the intent of the WOW is to help members live a healthy lifestyle. 

 

I disagree that ordination of women is novel for any reasons other than men have not seriously considered it, at least in the post-Biblical era. But then look how long it took us to stop viewing women as our property. 

[Gray]

What Biblical ordination?

 

I'm sure you're already aware. Start with Romans 16:1-16

[MiserereNobis]

You need to pay more attention, why me:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/ozy-catholic-church-role-of-women/5832233/

 

There's a good point in that article that might be applicable to this discussion, too:

 

 

Theology professor Alice L. Laffey makes a similar point in her op-ed, saying: "Throughout the world, women and their children make up the greatest percentage of human beings living in destitution. Their main concern is not women priests but food, health, education and physical safety. Francis' genuine concern for the real lives of the poor and suffering warmly embraces women." In other words, Francis is serving women through his focus on global poverty and hunger.

 

 

ETA:  the article ends with:

 

It's about time we started asking: What would Mary do?

 

The answer is clear.  Mary would submit Herself to the will of God

Edited March 18, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Gray]

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

 

No. His followers certainly did. We know very little about the life of Christ - not enough to say with any confidence that he didn't ordain women.

[jaxenro]

But then look how long it took us to stop viewing women as our property.

We stopped?

[Gray]

We stopped?

 

At least from a legal position we did 

[JLHPROF]

Presumably OD-2 was not needed to give German males the priesthood.

 

It's not really a matter of interpreting the Bible. It's a matter of whether or not you think the Bible recorded events accurately in regards to female leadership.

 

No. His followers certainly did. We know very little about the life of Christ - not enough to say with any confidence that he didn't ordain women.

 

I agree completely that we don't have a full record of Christ's day.  But I think that if Christ and the apostles had ordained female deacons, priests, bishops etc that something, anything, would have snuck through the historical record.  If we are looking to show that our traditional priesthood offices were held by women in Christs day there would be some speck of evidence somewhere.

 

The ONLY even possible evidence is that of Romans 16:7 where someone named Junia is called an Apostle.  And its an assumption that Junia was 100% definitely a female and an assumption that Apostle shouldn't be rendered Disciple or refers to the priesthood office.  I totally get that the historical record on this subject is unreliable, but if there's one thing we've learned, facts surface.  Surely there would some hint of female ordination to ecclesiastical office somewhere in history if it were there and only banned in our modern Church.

Edited March 18, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure you're already aware. Start with Romans 16:1-16

Actually, I'm not.

 

I see here a commendation for the service rendered by certain women in the church, similar to a commendation that might be given to Relief Society sisters of today. I scarcely see any difference. Certainly not evidence of ordination to priesthood office.

 

What else have you got?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I've try very hard to be civil, but of course I can't control what people choose to take offense at. My apologies if I've been ineffective at being civil. 

You've done all right.

 

I was obliquely referring to the chiding that came from the moderator a few posts back.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure comparing women to infants or objects is really forwarding your cause. 

I get his point: It is absurd to assume blanket divine approval for everything that is not specifically prohibited in ancient scripture.

[bluebell]

No. His followers certainly did. We know very little about the life of Christ - not enough to say with any confidence that he didn't ordain women.

We, being members of the LDS church, actually have quite a bit of info on whether or not Christ taught ordination of women. Because we are not forced to rely on the ancient biblical record but also have the D&C as well as other more contemporary records of Christ's followers.

You are right, in that there is a lot we don't know, but we aren't just secular historians trying to piece together the past here.

Did Christ, for example, direct JS to ordain any women as a part of the restoration? When He speaks extensively about the priesthood in the D&C, does He speak about women at all?

What evidence do we have that Christ condoned female ordination when He was organizing His church, or restoring it? It doesn't have to be proof, but what evidence can we use to support it? Can we make an argument in support of female ordination that is comprised of something more than "can you prove it didn't happen"?

[smac97]

I'm not sure comparing women to infants or objects is really forwarding your cause.

I'm not comparing them in any disparaging sense, so let's not go looking for ways to be offended. Holding the priesthood is an exclusive, rather than inclusive, thing. It is not at all disparaging to provide categories of people who do not hold it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

You need to pay more attention, why me:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/ozy-catholic-church-role-of-women/5832233/

And this was rather positive toward the catholic church and its attempt to bring poverty into the discussion. I saw no criticism in this article. And this would fit nicely with the media giving Francis the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that Benedict would have fared so well. And there was no interview from the OW movement in the catholic church. Unlike the pubicity the lds OW movement has gotten.

[mormonnewb]

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.

I agree with your reasoning here (what's new?). The Kelly (strident) approach is rarely effective. However, I think that it's necessary to push along a more moderate agenda.

For example, I think that Dr King's successes were in part due to the existence of Malcolm X and the like. In comparison to their demands for reparations or an independent black state, Dr King's demands of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter seemed eminently "reasonable."

I think the same might be true here. Compare to the say, the demand for the installation of Prophetess Johnson, the calls for women praying at conference or greater consultation between the bishop and RS president seems quite reasonable.

In other words, I think OW is just as much a part of the solution as Pants Sunday.

[why me]

 

ETA:  the article ends with:

 

 

The answer is clear.  Mary would submit Herself to the will of God

I have no idea if this is true. Mary seems to play no role in the church after the death of her son. She seems not to have any leadership roles at all. What we do have are James, Peter and Paul leading the church. But where is Mary or even Magdalena? They seem to be put to one side by the NT writers or by those who compiled the NT. I think that it is interesting that the two Mary's are ignored. But I am sure that the early church knew much where mary was and what she was doing.

[why me]

In other words, I think OW is just as much a part of the solution as Pants Sunday.

And yet, women can wear pants if they wish. This is not forbidden at all. But it may be a lds cultural thing for women to wear a dress or a skirt.

Edited March 18, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

I agree with your reasoning here (what's new?). The Kelly (strident) approach is rarely effective. However, I think that it's necessary to push along a more moderate agenda.

For example, I think that Dr King's successes were in part due to the existence of Malcolm X and the like. In comparison to their demands for reparations or an independent black state, Dr King's demands of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter seemed eminently "reasonable."

I think the same might be true here. Compare to the say, the demand for the installation of Prophetess Johnson, the calls for women praying at conference or greater consultation between the bishop and RS president seems quite reasonable.

In other words, I think OW is just as much a part of the solution as Pants Sunday.

One can hope, but myself I see an increase of negative reactions to change for women in defensive comments.  I think there is a difference when it is one tends to see as having a democratic voice in it as well as others and when one is thinking about one's religion or at least the LDS faith where we believe the prophets are directed by God, not the Voice of the People.  There are some that see OW as fighting against the Word of God and they associate others who push for change with them as well.  I don't think the Brethren will allow this to change what they are doing unless they believe it will add to the confusion to move for certain changes but I can see them having to slow down changes in order to reassure members the changes are for the right reason and not because of social pressure.  I don't see members being committed to the changes themselves if they see them as political moves which will defeat the whole project.  It is like the hanging on of the idea that only men can open or close Sacrament Meeting…the handbook says that is the wrong policy, that men and women can give both prayers and yet there are still local leaders and some not so local leaders pushing it and even going so far as to claim I have heard it reported that the "unwritten rule" is the real thing, the handbook is only a cosmetic adjustment.

[smac97]

Presumably OD-2 was not needed to give German males the priesthood.

No, it was needed to give men of black African descent the priesthood.

But in so doing, it established a clear scriptural / canonical / doctrinal limitation on the priesthood. D&C 84 and various other passages took gender for granted, but OD-2 made specific the nexus between gender and holding the priesthood.

 

It's not really a matter of interpreting the Bible. It's a matter of whether or not you think the Bible recorded events accurately in regards to female leadership.

So it's a matter of eisegesis, but not exegesis? I'm not sure that's a good recipe for discerning doctrine.

 

I think the spirit of the law is a good rule of thumb for anything from the Word of Wisdom to ordination.

So do I. But another rule of thumb is to sustain the Brethren. That has to include certain components in order to be workable. We need to assume the Brethren are in communion with God (absent evidence to the contrary). We need to recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about things, including important things. We need to allow the Brethren deference on debatable issues. We need to express concerns and attempt to affect positive change through charity, patience, humility, the Spirit. I don't think the OW group, with their public protests, aligning with excommunicated apostates, etc. is doing these things.

 

The spirit giveth life. I'm not a scriptural literalist, but it's clear that the intent of the WOW is to help members live a healthy lifestyle.

I agree. The scriptures require some exegesis. So the folks who are taking a literalist approach (saying that ordaining women to the priesthood should happen unless it is specifically prohibited in scripture) should reconsider their position.

 

I disagree that ordination of women is novel for any reasons other than men have not seriously considered it, at least in the post-Biblical era.

I was referring to the ordination of women in the LDS Church. In that context, I think agitation for female ordination is something of a novelty. Were there instances of 19th-century LDS women making public demands for the priesthood? If so, I would appreciate a reference or two.

 

But then look how long it took us to stop viewing women as our property.

I'm not inclined to lay all social ills at the feet of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 18, 2014 by smac97

[MiserereNobis]

I have no idea if this is true. Mary seems to play no role in the church after the death of her son. She seems not to have any leadership roles at all. What we do have are James, Peter and Paul leading the church. But where is Mary or even Magdalena? They seem to be put to one side by the NT writers or by those who compiled the NT. I think that it is interesting that the two Mary's are ignored. But I am sure that the early church knew much where mary was and what she was doing.

 

Exactly, which is why one of the three legs of the Catholic Church is Sacred Tradition, which is what has been passed down (to hand on is the root of the word tradition).  The other two legs are Scripture and the Magesterium (the Pope and Bishops).

 

There is definitely a lot of Tradition concerning Mary.  Whether or not you believe it, of course, is somewhat a matter of faith

[jaxenro]

At least from a legal position we did

Just don't tell my wife

[changed]

Interesting blogger post:http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2014/03/mormon-church-response-ordain-women-priesthood-session-tickets.html#.UykJX9Ao6Ul

 

[cdowis]

There is definitely a lot of Tradition concerning Mary.  Whether or not you believe it, of course, is somewhat a matter of faith

 

Perhaps you can clarify this somewhat.  I understand the RCC changed the doctrine of Mary  a few decades ago, contrary to the traditional view.