Well, Ow's Moment Has Been And Gone Again...

[Bikeemikey]

In response to someone else's comment, I used a conditional: "If that's true. ..."

I thus accused no one.

But you are falsely accusing me.

Oh, I'm sorry... Before you said we don't want your type in the church you included an, "if that's true clause".

My bad. That totally eliminates the idea that without that little lead in what you wrote was insulting...

Those little words change everything.

Some people have suggested Scott Lloyd is a sexist egoist. If that's true then he should be excluded from the church immediately as we already have enough of those kind of people.

Do you see how my use of, "if that's true" cometely reduces any negative impact the critical components of the statement might have had in its absence?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep.  Of course that's what it's about.  It is about "equality", not "priesthood".  It's about power to decide, not power of priesthood.

It's about them gaining an equal say in running the Church.

 

 

If that's true, then they've already missed the mark about what holding the priesthood is all about.

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-38)

 

We already have quite enough power seekers and would-be self-aggrandizers among ordained priesthood holders in the Church as it is. We don't need any more, be they men or women.

 

 

You only accused people generally!

Like I said, very Christlike.

 

 

In response to someone else's comment, I used a conditional: "If that's true. ..."

 

I thus accused no one.

 

But you are falsely accusing me.

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry... Before you said we don't want your type in the church you included an, "if that's true clause".

My bad. That totally eliminates the idea that without that little lead in what you wrote was insulting...

Those little words change everything.

 

 

They falsify the premise on which you base your accusation of me.

 

I was speaking to the general principle that the priesthood is not about wielding power or aggrandizing oneself. I was saying that such an attitude -- among people of either gender -- does not benefit the Church.

 

The phrase "if that's true" implies that the thing referred to may or may not be true.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

I have to admit that I haven't read all of the threads on OW movement, but my question is a pretty fundamental question.  Why do women specifically need or want the priesthood.  I guess I would also have to ask why do men want the priesthood.  Can't any member bless someone? heal the sick with faith? Give a mother's blessing to a child?  Take another woman through the temple?  Heal an ox?  As far as I can tell having the priesthood only qualifies you to perform ordinances and be subjected to endless meetings.  

 

If women want the priesthood so badly, are they already blessing others with their faith?  Maybe specifically I would like to know what they want to do with the priesthood if they were to receive it.  Do they want to pass the sacrament?  Baptize?  Be in charge of a ward?  And if it is to be in charge of a ward, what does a bishop do that a woman can't do.  Can't a woman notice a member that needs help?  Can't a woman offer counsel if someone comes to her?  Do you need the priesthood to magnify your calling?  If these women who are demanding the priesthood got it, what would be the first thing they would want to do with it?  Attend bishopric meetings?  Believe me, they are not that interesting.  Sit on the high council  What does a high council member do that a woman can't do that is of any importance?  I guess the actual endless meetings was just not that important to me personally.   Just asking.  Maybe someone who has been keeping up on all of this stuff can tell me what the end goal is of having the priesthood.  

 

I certainly don't miss it.  For me the importance was in blessing other peoples lives.  I can still do that.  No one stops me from giving someone a blessing.  It is the faith, not the title that heals.  If faith can move mountains, what additionally do you need the priesthood for?  It having the priesthood is just important to hold some title, then perhaps Scott Loyd is right.  Perhaps they are seeking the priesthood for the wrong reason.

 

I hope no one takes this as being disrespectful.  I don't mean it in that way at all.  I certainly understand and know the respect Mormons have for the priesthood.  And I respect that as well.  I am only asking if it is needed to bless others in their lives.  For me, that is the most important part of the priesthood, and I might add of faith.

[Calm]

W

hy do women specifically need or want the priesthood. 

 

There is quite a bit of variation.  One would need to ask a lot of women who do want it to be sure they covered all the bases.

[Pahoran]

I hope so.  In light of Christ's discussion of prayer in Luke 11, aren't they supposed to keep going?

 

 

⁵ And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;

⁶ For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?

⁷ And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.

⁸ I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

⁹ And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

¹⁰ For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

I read this to mean keep on knocking.  The Brethren may answer, "Trouble me not: the session is closed and Elder Oaks has spoken on the matter.  The thinking is done."  Yet, I say unto OW, "Though they will not let you in because of any great love or compassion, yet because of your importunity (and the PR nightmare), they will let as many of you in as you request."

 

Keep knocking, sisters!

No, they're not supposed to keep "knocking."

Although they probably will keep right on knocking the Church, and its leaders.

Their situation is rather more closely parallel to the conversation between Martin Harris and Joseph Smith leading up to the loss of the 116 pages.

They've asked the question; now it's been answered.

Those who "keep knocking" will do so because (1) they reject the authority of the living apostles and prophets, and (2) they think their agenda is more important than the Church's reasons for holding General Conference.

Thus, they will show themselves to be Latter-day Ain'ts; Mormons in name only, who are not only ineligible for Priesthood ordination, but who would have proved themselves unworthy even if they were eligible.

Regards,

Pahoran