Ordain Women Profiles....????

[Bernard Gui]

Let's look at some of the statements made by randomly chosen adherents on the Ordain Women website.

 

 

HI, I’M ZACK

I love the scriptures, including the Bible and those books that we Mormons have all to ourselves. The Doctrine and Covenants says “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only through persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love-unfeigned.” Unfortunately, right now ALL power and influence within the Church is maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

 

 

 

According to D&C 107:8, this is the way the Lord established his Church. For Zack to have his way, this would have to be repudiated. How would Zack propose we alter this revelation?

 

D&C 107:8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

 

 

 

HI, I’M MAGGIE

As children of Heavenly Parents, we all carry certain spiritual gifts with us into this life and throughout our lives we will acquire and develop new ones. We already have the power of God within us, it’s time that the respective gifts, talents and abilities of all members are utilized and encouraged within the Church. I believe that women should be ordained.

 

 

According to Alma 13, all those who receive the Priesthood on earth were foreordained in the pre-moral existence. Clearly, all these are men ordained after the Order of the Son (not Daughter) of God. There is no provision for later revisions. Does Maggie have evidence that sisters were also foreordained to receive the Priesthood? If so, what is it?

 

 

Alma 13: 1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

 5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

 6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children [men and women] of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

 7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

 8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

 9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen. 

 

Then there is Chelsea, who doesn't really seem to have much of an issue. It's not clear what questions required an answer.

HI, I’M CHELSEA

At times I felt isolated and frustrated, thinking only my husband could understand me, but buoyed by my faith I pressed on. God was at my side, giving me peace, promising me that there was an answer.

 

Finally, here is Ellen who has been active and inactive, but somehow thinks having callings in the Church makes her cause more credible. How does having a calling qualify a person to dictate to the leadership of the Church?

HI, I’M ELLEN

I am a Mormon and I support the ordination of women. I have done so since I joined the Church at age 25 – over 40 years ago. I have been active all of that time except for about 5 years when I struggled with issues surrounding women in the church. I have returned to full activity and have served as a Relief Society Teacher, Home-making Leader, Primary Teacher and now Primary President for the last 5 years.

 

 

Ellen's problem with diversity in the Church seems to be answered directly by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. Would Ellen have an alternative interpretation of these instructions? If so, let her present them.

 

 

1 Corinthians: 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also isChrist.

 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 14 For the body is not one member, but many.

 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to thatpart which lacked:

 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

 

 

Your comments are welcomed, including response from the above profiled members. You may also want to post other OW adherents' comments, not in the spirit of mockery, but in serious inquiry into

the foundation, substance, and veracity of their positions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buzzard]

Except for the inactives, former members, and non-LDS sympathizers, most of the sisters who post seem sincere. They do seem to be guilty of (just as I am)  cherry picking their scriptures and doctrines to match what they want. 

I have stated before in other threads, I don't have an issue with the question being asked, or even with a viewpoint being brought forward. We all have that right as saints and members of Christ's church. It's the whole "nothing less will suffice" kind of statements that puts the movement over the edge.

They seem to be less interested in getting an answer and more interested in storming the castle. At least that is the message I get from reading what their leadership says. 

Edited March 21, 2014 by Buzzard

[Buckeye]

I see the problem now.  Unlike this forum and the bloggernacle, the OW profiles have not been through correlation. 

[JLHPROF]

Let's look at some of the statements made by randomly chosen adherents on the Ordain Women website.

 

Do we have to?

Just kidding, sort of.  Nobody (at least I'm not) is questioning their motivations or their sincerity.  For me this is simply an issue of doctrine.

 

1. Scripturally the priesthood has only ever been given to sons and is after the order of the Son.

2. Ecclesiastical Priesthood was given as foreordination in the pre-earth life.  Only those who received it there have the right to it here.

3. Priesthood is NOT authority in the church.  It is an eternal thing that was held before we came here and will be held after we die.  This means that it has an unchanging nature and position.

4. There is a huge difference between ecclesiastical priesthood (male role) and temple priesthood (male & female roles).  One is temporal (on earth as foreordained) and the other is eternal (on earth stretching into eternity).

 

There is simply no doctrine in the LDS faith that allows or has ever allowed for women to hold the ecclesiastical priesthood.  Perhaps we should be teaching more about the priesthood received in the temple.

Edited March 21, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3. Priesthood is NOT authority in the church.  It is an eternal thing that was held before we came here and will be held after we die.  This means that it has an unchanging nature and position.

I am not so sure we held it before we came to this earth. I have not heard that before. And if we did hold it before what is point of getting it again here? I don't think what you are teaching is true.

[juliann]

Let's look at some of the statements made by randomly chosen adherents on the Ordain Women website.

 

Seriously?  You are going to nitpick through every word?  Something Pres. Uchtdorf said comes to mind....

[JLHPROF]

I am not so sure we held it before we came to this earth. I have not heard that before. And if we did hold it before what is point of getting it again here? I don't think what you are teaching is true.

 

Well, it's pretty well established:

 

1. See Bernards quote above - Alma 13:1-7

2. "Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was." (Joseph Smith - TPJS p. 365.)

3. In regard to the holding of the priesthood in pre-existence, I will say that there was an organization there just as well as an organization here, and men there held authority. Men chosen to positions of trust in the spirit world held priesthood.  (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.81)

4.  “So do I believe with regard to the apostles, the high priests, seventies and the elders of Israel bearing the holy priesthood, I believe they were ordained before they came here; and I believe the God of Israel has raised them up, and has watched over them from their youth, and has carried them through all the scenes of life both seen and unseen, and has prepared them as instruments in his hands to take this kingdom and bear it off.” - (Wilford Woodruff JOD 21:317) 

 

So yes, what I am teaching is true, if you believe the prophets and scriptures (even if you've never heard it  .)

[Bernard Gui]

Except for the inactives, former members, and non-LDS sympathizers, most of the sisters who post seem sincere. They do seem to be guilty of (just as I am)  cherry picking their scriptures and doctrines to match what they want. 

I have stated before in other threads, I don't have an issue with the question being asked, or even with a viewpoint being brought forward. We all have that right as saints and members of Christ's church. It's the whole "nothing less will suffice" kind of statements that puts the movement over the edge.

They seem to be less interested in getting an answer and more interested in storming the castle. At least that is the message I get from reading what their leadership says. 

The answer has been given clearly several times. Ears are not hearing. Sincerity has nothing to do with being correct. 

[Bernard Gui]

Do we have to?

Just kidding, sort of.  Nobody (at least I'm not) is questioning their motivations or their sincerity.  For me this is simply an issue of doctrine.

 

1. Scripturally the priesthood has only ever been given to sons and is after the order of the Son.

2. Ecclesiastical Priesthood was given as foreordination in the pre-earth life.  Only those who received it there have the right to it here.

3. Priesthood is NOT authority in the church.  It is an eternal thing that was held before we came here and will be held after we die.  This means that it has an unchanging nature and position.

4. There is a huge difference between ecclesiastical priesthood (male role) and temple priesthood (male & female roles).  One is temporal (on earth as foreordained) and the other is eternal (on earth stretching into eternity).

 

There is simply no doctrine in the LDS faith that allows or has ever allowed for women to hold the ecclesiastical priesthood.  Perhaps we should be teaching more about the priesthood received in the temple.

I agree with you, but there remain the positions that these people take. As far as I can tell, they are in direct contradiction with the scriptures, and in order to achieve their goals, the Church

will have to repudiate its foundational documents.

[Bernard Gui]

I am not so sure we held it before we came to this earth. I have not heard that before. And if we did hold it before what is point of getting it again here? I don't think what you are teaching is true.

Can we agree on this?

https://www.lds.org/topics/foreordination?lang=eng&query=foreordination

[Bernard Gui]

Seriously?  You are going to nitpick through every word?  Something Pres. Uchtdorf said comes to mind....

I don't believe holding people accountable for their published positions is nitpicking, but if that's the way you see it, I'm fine with it.

If one makes a public statement or demand directly in contraction with the doctrines, policies, and scriptures and insists the position is right and the scriptures must be changed,

then it is open to inquiry. 

Edited March 21, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Gotta go to Mt. Rainier. See you tomorrow....but please carry on without me. This is really interesting.

[JLHPROF]

So, a hypothetical question:

I know we can't know what the Ordain Women all think on something but I am curious:

 

Scenario:  Pres. Monson called them into his office and said "We're going to extend priesthood to women and we'd like to ordain you" but when asked if there was a revelation he said "No, but we think the time has come".

 

1. Would they take the ordination without God's word on the matter because they believe it is right and want it so much?

or

2. Would they decline until such time as the word of the Lord was confirmed to be received?

 

What do you think is in general most important to them as a group?  (We can't speculate individually obviously).  Getting the priesthood or getting God's word on the matter?

[cdowis]

I am not so sure we held it before we came to this earth. I have not heard that before

 

May I suggest that you read and study the scriptures.

 

 

. And if we did hold it before what is point of getting it again here?

 

It appears that you are not familiar with the doctrine of fore ordination.

 

 I don't think what you are teaching is true.

 

See my suggestion above.

 

[BlueDreams]

Let's look at some of the statements made by randomly chosen adherents on the Ordain Women website.

I  already did when they first came out....probably around 20-30 of the profiles to better understand their view and perspectives as well as to see if ordination was the only feasible way to answer their concerns and thoughts or rather whether their arguments would lead to a solid conclusion that women must be ordained like men are today. And though I came to the conclusion that it doesn't, it didn't include the responses you've given in the OP. These are holey as well. For example, you put strong emphasis on men being ordained as part of the order of the son of god, which you infer to be exclusionary to women. This does not make sense when in other  verses that describes divine relationships in the male form (sons, men, etc), we are often told that it is to equally apply to women....including the scripture actually used in the initiatories to prepare one to minister in the priest's office (Ex. 40:12-13). So to say these verses in mosiah only apply to men is reading into the scriptures the current bias/understanding of how to read the verses.

 

Likewise for the comment about Ellen there is a pretty gaping loophole as none of the diversity of talents in the chapter you quote necessitates that these gifts are gender-specific.

 

I do believe certain roles and responsibilities are established to be gender specific and I don't actually believe in ordination for women as men are today. But I also think if we are to find the holes or problems we have about the profiles on OW, it means checking our own views for problematic assumptions in our readings as well. if not to fix than at least to be aware and acknowledge possible short comings in what we have.

 

With luv,

BD

[Bikeemikey]

I agree with you, but there remain the positions that these people take. As far as I can tell, they are in direct contradiction with the scriptures, and in order to achieve their goals, the Church

will have to repudiate its foundational documents.

Revelation is able to tolerate the repudiation of all that has come before.

Also unless your the prophet you do not have authority to interpret any strict reading of the scriptures. As you stated, you only have your opinion.

[Bikeemikey]

I agree with you, but there remain the positions that these people take. As far as I can tell, they are in direct contradiction with the scriptures, and in order to achieve their goals, the Church

will have to repudiate its foundational documents.

Revelation is able to tolerate the repudiation of all that has come before.

Also unless your the prophet you do not have authority to interpret any strict reading of the scriptures. As you stated, you only have your opinion.

[Bikeemikey]

I already did when they first came out....probably around 20-30 of the profiles to better understand their view and perspectives as well as to see if ordination was the only feasible way to answer their concerns and thoughts or rather whether their arguments would lead to a solid conclusion that women must be ordained like men are today. And though I came to the conclusion that it doesn't, it didn't include the responses you've given in the OP. These are holey as well. For example, you put strong emphasis on men being ordained as part of the order of the son of god, which you infer to be exclusionary to women. This does not make sense when in other verses that describes divine relationships in the male form (sons, men, etc), we are often told that it is to equally apply to women....including the scripture actually used in the initiatories to prepare one to minister in the priest's office (Ex. 40:12-13). So to say these verses in mosiah only apply to men is reading into the scriptures the current bias/understanding of how to read the verses.

Likewise for the comment about Ellen there is a pretty gaping loophole as none of the diversity of talents in the chapter you quote necessitates that these gifts are gender-specific.

I do believe certain roles and responsibilities are established to be gender specific and I don't actually believe in ordination for women as men are today. But I also think if we are to find the holes or problems we have about the profiles on OW, it means checking our own views for problematic assumptions in our readings as well. if not to fix than at least to be aware and acknowledge possible short comings in what we have.

With luv,

BD

Thanks for an excellent post. The point you make about the initiatory scripture is very insightful and should but to bed this objection that gender terminology in the scriptures is in any way authoritative, rather than a simple literary artifact.

However, when if it doesn't, present day revelation trumps all that has come before, end of story.

[BlueDreams]

Thanks for an excellent post. The point you make about the initiatory scripture is very insightful and should but to bed this objection that gender terminology in the scriptures is in any way authoritative, rather than a simple literary artifact.

However, when if it doesn't, present day revelation trumps all that has come before, end of story.

 

Thanks....but I'm about to look pretty contrary right after that. I don't think you can entirely lump gender terminology as just a literary artifact (whether in scriptures or present day) entirely any more than I think Bernard can firmly assume that what he's quoted, alone, is enough to make the point he was making. Both are problematic, IMO....and there are other scriptures that are extremely gender specific that does not, in the least, seem like it's just a literary term dealing with priesthood. My overall view is that the genders play different roles in the priesthood (priesthood being defined as God's power and authority). Both have power and authority, one is just more officially noted and utilized in the church....which is the major problem IMO. The ultimate doctrinal structure doesn't show necessarily any signs of drastic change, but probably greater expounding and insights about women in it (at least that's what I hope for).

 

With luv,

BD

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

I am not so sure we held it before we came to this earth. I have not heard that before

 

May I suggest that you read and study the scriptures.

 

 

. And if we did hold it before what is point of getting it again here?

 

It appears that you are not familiar with the doctrine of fore ordination.

 

 I don't think what you are teaching is true.

 

See my suggestion above.

 

 

What you are saying is not very helpful. Maybe you should actually engage my arguments?? Fore ordination is different from actual ordination. Did you know that? Maybe you should read the scriptures.

 

On a more serious note I can find no reference were we held the priesthood before this earth. And if we did, for the sake of the argument, why do we need to receive it again.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, it's pretty well established:

 

1. See Bernards quote above - Alma 13:1-7

2. "Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was." (Joseph Smith - TPJS p. 365.)

3. In regard to the holding of the priesthood in pre-existence, I will say that there was an organization there just as well as an organization here, and men there held authority. Men chosen to positions of trust in the spirit world held priesthood.  (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.81)

4.  “So do I believe with regard to the apostles, the high priests, seventies and the elders of Israel bearing the holy priesthood, I believe they were ordained before they came here; and I believe the God of Israel has raised them up, and has watched over them from their youth, and has carried them through all the scenes of life both seen and unseen, and has prepared them as instruments in his hands to take this kingdom and bear it off.” - (Wilford Woodruff JOD 21:317) 

 

So yes, what I am teaching is true, if you believe the prophets and scriptures (even if you've never heard it  .)

Right fore ordination is not the same as ordination now is it. I am well familiar with the scriptures. Fore ordination is sorta like, "Hey we will be calling you to be a bishop on this earth". Does that mean they actually hold the office of a bishop at that time? Remember once a bishop always a bishop, and if that is they case why set them a part here on this earth and give them keys they already hold, according to your interpretation. I just disagree that we held the priesthood before this earth life.  That seems to be an interpretation I am unfamiliar with.

 

I would not that you quoted nothing that was from the scriptures that shows we held it. The closet you got was Doctrines of Salvation which as far I knew was not official.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3. Priesthood is NOT authority in the church.  It is an eternal thing that was held before we came here and will be held after we die.  This means that it has an unchanging nature and position.

I need to come back to this, I would say that the priesthood is indeed authority in the church. But what you might be saying is that just because some one has it and other don't that does not mean that they have authority over them. And I agree and the scriptures condemn that practice. But this whole idea in your 2nd sentence has has some implication. And all in all it might not be a big deal other than the scriptures do not explicitly teach that we held the priesthood before this earth life only that we were fore ordained. That is really my only beef. And it really probably doesn't matter either way to the points you are making.