Have You Seen The Graphic? Here's The Story.

[CV75]

So maybe we need to repent and receive the pending revelation that women are entitled to ordination.

Ha-ha! Nothing to base it on!

[rockpond]

Ha-ha! Nothing to base it on!

 

Merriam-Webster's definition of Revelation:  a usually secret or surprising fact that is made known, an act of making something known, an act of revealing something in usually a surprising way, something that surprises you.

[CV75]

I figured you'd want to dismiss the Brigham Young policy on race because it doesn't fit your theory.  Either he received a revelation that wasn't foretold with a "promise" that the Priesthood would be taken away from some.  Or, he didn't receive a revelation and he chose to deny those blessings to Blacks based upon his best understanding of scripture -- which understanding ultimately turned out to be wrong.  Both of those possibilities contradict your reasoning as to why women won't be ordained to the priesthood.

Not at all--I dismiss your invite to share an opinion simply becuse I don't have one. The abrahamic promise was still being fulfilled all along the way, just more completely with OD2, and 35+ years later, even more completely with the revelations of where to put more Church units, temples, etc.

 

 

Again, when you define the promises in such a broad or general way, a revelation for women to be ordained to priesthood office would also be seen as a fulfillment of general promises already "on the books" so to speak.

 

Further, I could also theorize that promises given in the temple could be looked at as opening up the possibility of ordination of women (under your theory that everything must be promised first).

The revelations on "temporal salvation" can be viewed as either broad or specific; as new revelation is laid out line upon line, it does tend to become more specific as we can see with the Word of Wisdom.

 

Which promise "on the books" do you think supports women's ordination (please come up with something that hasn't been on the other threads)?

 

I can't think of any temple promises pointing to priesthood ordination for women; the anticipated annointings (not conferral or oridination) point to the resurrection and to a more advanced order of priesthood than what we find on earth and in the Church. That is why men (who have already been ordained in the Church on earth) are also promised to become Priests. I think it best to stick to the canon.

[CV75]

Merriam-Webster's definition of Revelation:  a usually secret or surprising fact that is made known, an act of making something known, an act of revealing something in usually a surprising way, something that surprises you.

Let's agree to use this definiton: https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

[rockpond]

Let's agree to use this definiton: https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

 

Agreed.  And that definition does not require that a promise of a specific revelation be given first.

[Chaos]

"I regret that you are making an assertion you know to be false."

Having paid close attention to canard since he began posting here, I don't buy for a second this claim of yours is true.

Nor do I think he is arrogant.

He is a thoughtful and kind poster who deserves better treatment than this.

Pahoran has been removed from the thread.

[rockpond]

Not at all--I dismiss your invite to share an opinion simply becuse I don't have one. The abrahamic promise was still being fulfilled all along the way, just more completely with OD2, and 35+ years later, even more completely with the revelations of where to put more Church units, temples, etc.

 

 

The revelations on "temporal salvation" can be viewed as either broad or specific; as new revelation is laid out line upon line, it does tend to become more specific as we can see with the Word of Wisdom.

 

Which promise "on the books" do you think supports women's ordination (please come up with something that hasn't been on the other threads)?

 

I can't think of any temple promises pointing to priesthood ordination for women; the anticipated annointings (not conferral or oridination) point to the resurrection and to a more advanced order of priesthood than what we find on earth and in the Church. That is why men (who have already been ordained in the Church on earth) are also promised to become Priests. I think it best to stick to the canon.

 

So the Abrahamic promise is broad enough to include more temples and wards but couldn't possibly include ordination of women because of male pronouns in the Bible.

 

Your only scriptural support for your theory that a promise must precede a revelation is "line upon line".  And you justify everything by either providing overly narrow or overly general interpretations of the promises.

 

As for what is "on the books"... by your broad interpretations the Abrahamic promise or promises of "temporal salvation" or a restoration of all things or "all alike unto God", etc.  The way you apply interpretations, plenty of things would work.  But again, no promise is actually needed... I see no justification for qualifying when God can speak to us and on which subjects.

[CV75]

Agreed.  And that definition does not require that a promise of a specific revelation be given first.

LOL--that's because it's only a definition! That's not a good enough dismissal--take a look at how revelation comes, the patterns, etc.

 

(..and provide an example where it has nothing upon which it is built...)

[CV75]

So the Abrahamic promise is broad enough to include more temples and wards but couldn't possibly include ordination of women because of male pronouns in the Bible.

 

Your only scriptural support for your theory that a promise must precede a revelation is "line upon line".  And you justify everything by either providing overly narrow or overly general interpretations of the promises.

 

As for what is "on the books"... by your broad interpretations the Abrahamic promise or promises of "temporal salvation" or a restoration of all things or "all alike unto God", etc.  The way you apply interpretations, plenty of things would work.  But again, no promise is actually needed... I see no justification for qualifying when God can speak to us and on which subjects.

Male pronouns in all the canon having to do with priesthood conferral and ordination.

 

See the "all alike unto God" thread.

 

The revelations are all/each dependent on God's promsies. He will only speak to us of what He has laid out in His plan.

Edited April 21, 2014 by CV75

[rockpond]

LOL--that's because it's only a definition! That's not a good enough dismissal--take a look at how revelation comes, the patterns, etc.

 

(..and provide an example where it has nothing upon which it is built...)

 

It's the Church's definition.  And if a "promise" was required to receive revelation, you'd think they would mention it.

 

You've already made it clear that any example of a revelation that I provide, you'll just drop it under the broad umbrellas of "temporal salvation" or Abrahamic promise (which you've now defined to be as broad as growth in the church).

 

But, of course, a revelation permitting the ordination of women doesn't fall under those umbrellas.  Why?  Because of male pronouns in the Bible.  Funny.

 

I wonder how you'll justify it when the revelation does come.

[rockpond]

Male pronouns in all the canon having to do with priesthood conferral and ordination.

 

See the "all alike unto God" thread.

 

The revelations are all/each dependent on God's promsies. He will only speak to us of what He has laid out in His plan.

 

And we already know His entire plan?

[canard78]

Pahoran has been removed from the thread.

 

Thanks.

[wenglund]

From my perspective, I see a trend among Church members to idolize the prophets and apostles to a degree that we shouldn't.

 

I don't think that rationally deferring to superior authority, particularly in matters outside our direct purview, equates with idolatry; whereas, presumptuously supplanting oneself in their stead may well qualify, though it is certain that those who do so will see it otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

It's the Church's definition.  And if a "promise" was required to receive revelation, you'd think they would mention it.

It's a definiton, not a specification (The scriptures provide the specs, as I provided). The important thing is that revelation is not defined as a "surprise" but as "communication" to the faithful.

You've already made it clear that any example of a revelation that I provide, you'll just drop it under the broad umbrellas of "temporal salvation" or Abrahamic promise (which you've now defined to be as broad as growth in the church).

It depends on the revelation as to which principle / promise it is tied to.

But, of course, a revelation permitting the ordination of women doesn't fall under those umbrellas.  Why?  Because of male pronouns in the Bible.  Funny.

No; it is because there is no revelation permitting the ordination of women, nor a principle / promise to tie it to. All the scriptures in the Bible and other standard works use male pronouns in relation to priesthood conferral and ordination, so there is not much else to conclude. It is funny that you keep truncating the explanation and its meaning.

And we already know His entire plan?

We know how He reveals His plan, and on this subject He's made it clear.

[ChristKnight]

 The ability to trust prophets is at the very top of my list of issues I'm wrestling with. I gave an example of the biggest issue for me (race and the priesthood)...

 

I'd share a more detailed description of how I reached my conclusions on this thread but I'm not sure you're really interested. They're on my blog (linked in signature) if you're genuinely interested. If you're going to read and comment on them, please be respectful. They are sacred experiences to me. The latest conclusion (and it's the first time I feel I've reached some conclusions) is the most recent blog post called "I'm not afraid any more." It's quite long. The first half is reflections on a recent endowment experience. The second half is a summary of the conclusions I've reached. I believe God has guided me to them.

 

Thanks for pointing out your blog, I found it very interesting.  I agree with you as far as the "biggest issue" and trusting the prophets.  For me, I love many things about the LDS faith, including the concept of having living prophets, the temple (probably my favorite aspect), proxy ordinances, missionary work, the emphasis on revelation, the "identity", etc.  However, the race and the priesthood issue is extremely difficult (perhaps made so because I am black).  I simply could not imagine sitting in church or hearing leaders speak in various settings and listening to some of the things said (but then I wonder if they would say these things in the presence of black members in the first place).  Your links on this page on your blog were very...disturbing.   As well, I couldn't square the priesthood/temple restriction with Christ coming for all people, calling all to eternal life.  It is probably one of the biggest reasons why I became disillusioned and reconsidered Catholicism, after just ignoring the issue for awhile.

 

Anyway, thanks again for sharing your personal thoughts, and I always appreciate your posts.

[wenglund]

Pahoran has been removed from the thread.

 

This is unfortunate. Perhaps I should remove myself from the thread since I share his perspective. In fact, that is exactly what I will do.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

We know how He reveals His plan, and on this subject He's made it clear.

 

Yes, and those who believed that Brigham Young spoke for God on the issue of race back in the 19th century, would have believed that God was clear in stating that Blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millenium ("after all the Sons of Adam...").  And they were wrong.

 

I don't see the same clarity you do with respect to women's ordination.  But I do believe I understand your interpretation and views.

 

I will, respectfully, continue to believe that God can reveal what He chooses to reveal, through His prophets, to the church, without prerequisite.  

[CV75]

Yes, and those who believed that Brigham Young spoke for God on the issue of race back in the 19th century, would have believed that God was clear in stating that Blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millenium ("after all the Sons of Adam...").  And they were wrong.

 

I don't see the same clarity you do with respect to women's ordination.  But I do believe I understand your interpretation and views.

 

I will, respectfully, continue to believe that God can reveal what He chooses to reveal, through His prophets, to the church, without prerequisite.  

I’m really not worried about what others believed or might have believed in Brigham Young’s day, or what I would have believed in his day or prior to the Race and Priesthood publication. I would suggest that such preoccupation with blame as the fuel for one’s arguments and dreams of future revelations that might surprise himself, others, or the prophet receiving it is a form of sleeping through the Restoration (per Elder Uchtdorf’s recent talk).

 

You have to admit there are many “prerequisites” for revelation, only three of which are knowledge of, faith in, and obedience to that which has been revealed thus far. The condemnation of mistakes (whether perceived or real) with limited light and judgment is not a prerequisite for revelation. I think we have enough evidence to trust that God has shown us what to expect, since He leads the way line upon line, consistent with current prophets and canon, and not by surprise or in contention with past prophets or that which isn’t canon.

[Stone holm]

Yes, and those who believed that Brigham Young spoke for God on the issue of race back in the 19th century, would have believed that God was clear in stating that Blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millenium ("after all the Sons of Adam...").  And they were wrong.

 

I don't see the same clarity you do with respect to women's ordination.  But I do believe I understand your interpretation and views.

 

I will, respectfully, continue to believe that God can reveal what He chooses to reveal, through His prophets, to the church, without prerequisite.

I don't think we should completely throw Brigham Young under the bus , he may have been right as to not extending the Priesthood, but just got the reasons wrong. But I agree with you that the arguments being made about women not being ordained are not as strong as they are being made out to be. Especially those relying on which pronouns are used, etc. But that does not mean that the issues concerning women and access to authority are going to be resolved the same way as the race issue. I don't think we should try to hem The Lord in, while we can surmise that the status quo is not sustainable, to go from there and assume that women are going to be ordained to the same Priesthood as men...well I don't know as we should be projecting that.

[Bikeemikey]

I’m really not worried about what others believed or might have believed in Brigham Young’s day, or what I would have believed in his day or prior to the Race and Priesthood publication. I would suggest that such preoccupation with blame as the fuel for one’s arguments and dreams of future revelations that might surprise himself, others, or the prophet receiving it is a form of sleeping through the Restoration (per Elder Uchtdorf’s recent talk).

You have to admit there are many “prerequisites” for revelation, only three of which are knowledge of, faith in, and obedience to that which has been revealed thus far. The condemnation of mistakes (whether perceived or real) with limited light and judgment is not a prerequisite for revelation. I think we have enough evidence to trust that God has shown us what to expect, since He leads the way line upon line, consistent with current prophets and canon, and not by surprise or in contention with past prophets or that which isn’t canon.

The only way to claim that there will never be a revelation including women in the priesthood is to make a claim that God will never give such a revelation...

I'm a mormon, such a claim would be contrary to the principles of the restored gospel.

You can say its your opinion that such a revelation will be unlikely, but Mormons know better than to ever say never.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[canard78]

Thanks for pointing out your blog, I found it very interesting. I agree with you as far as the "biggest issue" and trusting the prophets. For me, I love many things about the LDS faith, including the concept of having living prophets, the temple (probably my favorite aspect), proxy ordinances, missionary work, the emphasis on revelation, the "identity", etc. However, the race and the priesthood issue is extremely difficult (perhaps made so because I am black). I simply could not imagine sitting in church or hearing leaders speak in various settings and listening to some of the things said (but then I wonder if they would say these things in the presence of black members in the first place). Your links on this page on your blog were very...disturbing. As well, I couldn't square the priesthood/temple restriction with Christ coming for all people, calling all to eternal life. It is probably one of the biggest reasons why I became disillusioned and reconsidered Catholicism, after just ignoring the issue for awhile.

Anyway, thanks again for sharing your personal thoughts, and I always appreciate your posts.

Thanks for you comments. When pahoran earlier accused me of playing the race card I don't think he appreciated how deep it runs for me too.

Some of those links simply break the prophetic model for me.

Edited April 22, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

This is unfortunate. Perhaps I should remove myself from the thread since I share his perspective. In fact, that is exactly what I will do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't there's a problem with sharing his views. I would imagine the problem was that used terms like "arrogant," called me an apostate, dishonest and started making comments about my wife.

We can disagree and keep it respectful.

[CV75]

The only way to claim that there will never be a revelation including women in the priesthood is to make a claim that God will never give such a revelation...

I'm a mormon, such a claim would be contrary to the principles of the restored gospel.

You can say its your opinion that such a revelation will be unlikely, but Mormons know better than to ever say never.

I’m not making that claim. Women are already included “in the priesthood.” I am saying that priesthood conferral and ordination for women is inconsistent with the standard works and temple promises, and that revelation on this, as with any subject, is based on and consistent with prior revelation and promises (covenants). For this reason, the assumption that priesthood conferral and ordination for women is inevitable for this Church cannot be substantiated, and a revelation instituting priesthood conferral and ordination for women is not in the offing.

[Senator]

Women are already included “in the priesthood.”

 

I'm still scratching my head over this claim.  Women are in the priesthood, hold the priesthood,  have priesthood power, exercise priesthood power. They've always had it!

 

 Even if that's the way it's always been, this new emphasis on such wording, is in itself, a new revelation it appears.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Senator

[CV75]

I'm still scratching my head over this claim.  Women are in the priesthood, hold the priesthood,  have priesthood power, exercise priesthood power. They've always had it!

 

 Even if that's the way it's always been, this new emphasis on such wording, is in itself, a new revelation it appears.

Epiphanies are the spice of life! What may be new to one person is old news to someone else, whether in concept or just in the wording. That is why discussion is so valuable.