Ordain Women Group Publishes "six Discussions" To Proselytize For Its Agenda

[Gray]

There is record of Christ laying his hands upon the head of the original 12 apostles and ordaining them.    There is also record of the 12 ordaining others to the priesthood throughout the early church.

 

Is there any record of this occurring with Phoebe or evidence of her exercising priesthood authority?  And as has already been stated, there are no original bible manuscripts, so we are at the whim of translations, which were made after the death of the apostles and not inspired.

 

There is no such record for many male priesthood leaders of the scriptures. It's easy to hit a bullseye when you draw a circle around wherever your dart lands. 

[Storm Rider]

I think a certain gender gap is illustrated in this very statement, "such correction is the province........of the Brethren.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how "inclusive" the councils are, it will be the men that will have the final word and make the decision. 

 

There is an undeniable gap in such an arrangement.

 

So no entity whether it is based on race, gender, religion, etc. is capable of making a proper decision for any other gender, religion, race, etc.  That is a strange world that you dream up in order to be.....what do you call it?  Equal?  You cannot possibly make a decision or choice that affects a Baptist or for the opposite sex or for anyone that is different from you because, in your world, any difference automatically makes you incapable of making a decision that affects those that are different for you.  We call this Balkanization; a strict separation based solely on that which differentiates a people or group.

 

We should divide up the world on these strict formulations and then we can call it being equal.  A man never makes a decision that impacts a woman; a blond could only make decisions that affect a blond; a fat person only for fat people; a specific race only for that race and then we can continue to divide the human race into so many subgroups that everyone can be an island; billions of equal islands without any ability to talk to one another.  I mean, why would anyone dare talk to those that are different.  

 

Gosh, leave it up to the enlightened few and what a heaven could be created here on earth.  Is there anyone that wants to live in that mass of separate islands of equality?  Just one?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think a certain gender gap is illustrated in this very statement, "such correction is the province........of the Brethren.

 

At the end of the day, no matter how "inclusive" the councils are, it will be the men that will have the final word and make the decision. 

 

There is an undeniable gap in such an arrangement.

I saw implicit in Smac's remark the province of the Brethren as they are divinely directed.

 

Where divine direction is present, such earthly dynamics as "gender gaps" cease to have relevance.

[Storm Rider]

Denied, but not really addressed. I don't think applying an unfair double standard to the scriptures regarding men and women and their roles  is really persuasive. 

 

 

And for goodness sake, lets not confuse one's personal opinion with scripture.  I mean; dang; humans know best with a long history of demonstrating exactly how well they know how to manage things.  

[Gray]

OK. Yet there is no valid principle supporting your position in scripture (you can’t use the Jew/Gentile context in 2 Nephi 26:33, which context follows in the New Testament as well), and there is no reference specifically banning in your position in scripture, and so you conclude that your position is consistent with scripture and is a general good principle? Oh-kay….

 

Given that there is precedent for ordination of women in scripture, support for the principle of equality regardless of gender in scripture, and a lack of specific revelation banning women from priesthood, I think I stand on solid ground. Tradition is simply not enough to establish the rightness of a practice, and tradition is the only thing there is to support the continued priesthood ban.

[Storm Rider]

There is no such record for many male priesthood leaders of the scriptures. It's easy to hit a bullseye when you draw a circle around wherever your dart lands. 

 

Of course not; particularly when you close your eyes and stop looking.  

[Gray]

It says what the long-standing divine pattern is, and who receives it. I listed the specific verses.

 

"Men are that they might have joy"

 

The long-standing pattern must also be, then, that joy is strictly for men only

[Gray]

And you know that with a certainty, is that correct?

 

Elder Oaks explained it to my satisfaction, but I guess there are those who require a specific canonized scripture (the only source of revelation?) which has been approved by the members of the church.  Indeed, perhaps it is possible for a group to convince the majority of members to overturn any decision of  those who are in authority with the simple argument, "Well, it ain't in the scriptures".  

 

I now have a better understanding of the phrase, "going beyond the mark".

 

No one is obliged to give consideration to secret revelations not presented to the church. Everyone has a right to personal revelation, including church leaders. I can't rule out whether any of the apostles have experienced personal revelation on the subject, but none has made known to the rest of the church. 

Edited June 2, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

And for goodness sake, lets not confuse one's personal opinion with scripture.  I mean; dang; humans know best with a long history of demonstrating exactly how well they know how to manage things.  

 

They shouldn't be confused, but I don't think anyone can be faulted for having a personal opinion. 

[Gray]

Of course not; particularly when you close your eyes and stop looking.  

 

Who laid hands on Paul's head to give him the priesthood?

[Benjamin McGuire]

CV75 writes:

Too bad you focused on what isn't in there that meets your criteria. Here is what I think does (and this is just Handbook 1!)--sorry to take up so much space but perhaps you didn't see it all for some reason:

No, I saw it all. I read it quite differently than you do. I mean, after all, you highlighted the material that says that the Bishop makes all the decisions. Oh wait, that's right, the Bishop doesn't make all the decisions for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums, does he. As the CHI notes (7.3.1):

The bishop is the presiding high priest in the ward. He and his counselors work closely with the elders quorum president and the high priests group leader in watching over quorum and group members and their families, building strength in the quorum and group, and ensuring that the work of the priesthood is accomplished.

 

Although the elders quorum president and high priests group leader are directly responsible to the stake presidency, the bishop meets regularly with each of them. He asks them to report on their responsibilities, including home teaching in the quorum or group. He also counsels them and encourages them to magnify their callings.

Oh yes, and while the Primary Presidency has a councilor to the Bishop assigned to her to take all of her concerns to the Bishop (11.2.1):

The bishop assigns one of his counselors to oversee the ward Primary. This counselor has the following responsibilities:

 

He meets regularly with the ward Primary presidency. He reports on Primary matters in bishopric meetings.

The Elder's Quorum President actually get to meet with the Bishopric (7.3.2):

They serve as members of the ward priesthood executive committee and ward council.

 

And it goes on. In other words, decisions are made about the Auxiliaries in the Church in meetings at which their presidencies are not invited to attend. Meanwhile, since they are Priesthood holders, all of the presidents of the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums, as well as the Young Men's President get to attend. Although the Bishop doesn't even get to make some of the decisions for the Elder's Quorum, since that is a function of the Stake Presidency. Yes in deed. What you highlight does not come close to describing any kind of parity. Nor does it elevate women to a position of leadership. They are there simply to provide input so that the men can make the decisions. And when the Relief Society President gets invited (and its only by invitation) to PEC, it is clear that she is simply a guest at the big boys table, right?

 

And of course this doesn't begin to address the larger problem of how gender is perceived in the Church, and how the differences between the ways that we treat the Young Women and the ways that we treat the Young Men create an ongoing problem that will not improve until we deal with it institutionally.

 

Ben McGuire

[Senator]

So no entity whether it is based on race, gender, religion, etc. is capable of making a proper decision for any other gender, religion, race, etc.  That is a strange world that you dream up in order to be.....what do you call it?  Equal?  You cannot possibly make a decision or choice that affects a Baptist or for the opposite sex or for anyone that is different from you because, in your world, any difference automatically makes you incapable of making a decision that affects those that are different for you.  We call this Balkanization; a strict separation based solely on that which differentiates a people or group.

 

We should divide up the world on these strict formulations and then we can call it being equal.  A man never makes a decision that impacts a woman; a blond could only make decisions that affect a blond; a fat person only for fat people; a specific race only for that race and then we can continue to divide the human race into so many subgroups that everyone can be an island; billions of equal islands without any ability to talk to one another.  I mean, why would anyone dare talk to those that are different.

First, try avoiding putting words in my mouth. This will then assist you in avoiding unnecessary and fallacious extrapolations.

I never said that certain people can't make a decision for other groups. Smac posited that certain presuppositions need first be established. My comment was an attempt to address that request irrespective to its validity.

  

Gosh, leave it up to the enlightened few and what a heaven could be created here on earth.  Is there anyone that wants to live in that mass of separate islands of equality?  Just one?

Do you and Wade get together an swap patronizing one-liner punch lines?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Senator

[bluebell]

 

 

 

The Elder's Quorum President actually get to meet with the Bishopric (7.3.2):

 

 

Ben McGuire

 

Does the Sunday School president or the YM's president get to meet with the Bishop as part of PEC?

 

I'm honestly asking as i have no idea.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think its wise to elevate human opinion and tradition to being representative of the actual mind of God.

I think you answered this yourself.

All scripture of course is filtered through human consciousness, human language, human traditions and human bias.

That's a tough distinction to make epistemologically speaking. We can't know the "mind of God", just what our filters allow us to postulate. In essence we invent what seems right and is confirmed by the spirit. That's about all we can do.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac writes:

Our ward council also has a "Communications Coordinator" who is a sister. These sisters have a very strong voice in the administration of our ward.

But obviously, this isn't a priesthood calling is it, and while she may have a strong voice, that strong voice has zero decision making power in terms of administering the ward.

Regarding your question about closing the "gender gap," that includes a number of unestablished presuppositions, including A) that "gender gap" in ward councils merits correction, B) that such correction is the province of self-selected folks within the Church rather than the Brethren, C) that gender quotas in ward leadership are part of God's plan, or that the absence of gender quotas contravenes God's will.

It isn't a gender gap in the ward council. It is a gender gap in the Church, and its a huge issue. Let me point something out from my first remarks that largely went ignored. Every two years we recognize young men as making another milestone towards becoming men - we stand them up in front of the congregation, announce them has having been ordained to the next office in the priesthood. Since we have tied the Young Men's program to the Boy Scouts, at least every quarter we have a court of honor, and we again recognize the Young Men (this extends way back to Primary with the Cub Scouts as well). We tie the leadership of the Boy Scouts by policy to callings in the Aaronic Priesthood. This has the very real effect, by the way, in parts of the world where there is just scouts and not Boy Scouts of preventing the girls in the scouting program from getting those leadership positions. So we have all this recognition of the boys, and is there any parity for the Young Women? Do our girls look up at the stand on Sunday morning and see the women leaders they are supposed to emulate? No, usually they see a chorister and an organist, and potentially a speaker or even two (if the youth speaker happens to be a girl). At least these days, they can pray in Sacrament Meeting right? (That wasn't always allowed). Years ago, the women and girls helped prepare the sacrament. Shoot they could even pass it (that of course cannot be part of administering the sacrament since Deacons and Teachers are forbidden to do so). And yet, every Sunday we highlight these boys as they pass the sacrament and the Bishop gives them a pat on the back for the "reverent manner in which the sacrament was blessed and passed". From the very beginning we have this preferential treatment surrounding the boys and the men. And this comes as no surprise because women do not help make these kinds of decisions in the Church.

 

And from there it only gets worse, right? In disciplinary courts, it is always all men. For the Stake, it is fifteen High Priests (Stake Presidency and the High Council) for Wards, it is the Bishopric and their Secretary (again all men). And of course, with the High Council, half are supposed to advocate for, and half to advocate against, and this means that for a woman, if she finds herself in such a disciplinary court she will never have an advocate that is a woman. And a woman can only confess to a man (and a man never confesses to a woman in that context, right?) Or consider sealings. A man can be sealed to as many women as he can marry (one at a time now, of course). And a woman? She can only be sealed to her second husband once they are all dead. Of course, she could have her sealing cancelled so as to be sealed to that new husband. But before that can happen she first has to get permission from her bishop, and then she has to get permission from the stake president, and then, it gets sent to the First Presidency, and so on. For a man whose wife dies, he just gets married, gets sealed, and there is nothing else involved. Doctrinally, of course, this means (depending on how you look at it) that if you are a woman, and you die, you could be sharing your husband in the eternities with absolutely no say in the matter, right? Since we allow women to be sealed to multiple men, why the need for such unequal treatment? This gets to be a long list very, very quickly. We don't have to define equality in any way that, say, Wade, wants to to come to grips with the fact that there is this challenge with parity between men and women in the Church - and it isn't just about leadership.

 

And all of those sorts of things kick in long before we start talking about leadership roles, and decision making, and the question of whether or not women are just as capable of making decisions, and administering the gospel. But those are real issues. And they are real issues when we live in a society that clearly claims that women are as capable as men. And we tell our wives and daughters and sisters that they are as capable as any man. Except of course, in the Church, where they aren't given an opportunity because they lack the priesthood. And a church where we once recognized that they held priesthood power, and could anoint with oil the sick and afflicted, and heal them, and baptize them in the temples. And then we (speaking of the Church) systematically took all of it away with no real basis for it.

 

So when we talk about a gender gap in the Church, it is because there is a very real gender gap, and it very much does affect many women in the Church, and more to the point, as it become more and more obvious to the women in the Church (by comparison with other contexts), it will create barriers to membership.

 

Finally, you face a really different problem here Smac. It isn't whether or not there exists a gender gap in the way that you define it. If you want to try and define it away as a response to the struggle of women in the Church - you won't make any headway at addressing the issue. It is like sticking your head in sand (or wrapping it with a towel, right?). We have women who believe that there is a gender gap, and who are very frustrated by it. I know many of them personally. And while many of them also may not be fond of the position that the OW movement has taken, they very much applaud the outcomes in terms of change that has happened and is happening. And this is why, until the Church finds or creates a more appropriate mechanism for women to have their voices heard in a way that generates real change, the support for OW is not likely to go away.

 

But we have this other sort of shadow debate between people like yourself, challenging these women, suggesting that they are doing all the wrong things and are thus in the throes of apostasy, and this is really just an effort to shut them up, not to try and address some of the issues. There is a lot of room for change that doesn't involve ordaining women. But it starts with recognizing that there is an issue worth looking at. And the fact that the Church has been making changes - at least partially in response to OW makes a clear argument that they recognize that there are issues that need to change.

 

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Wade writes:

However, I challenge one of your premises. To me, it doesn't necessarily follow that since certain changes have been implemented, they were appropriate and necessary, any more than it would logically follow that since the changes did not occur for centuries if not millennial, they then were not appropriate or were unnecessary. For all we know, the recent relatively nominal changes could have been implemented so as to minimize the public distraction.

That certainly seems possible. However, these changes don't have a nominal impact. Allowing a woman to pray in General Conference is not an insignificant change. Any shift which increases parity between men and women is not a nominal change. Broadcasting the priesthood session live was definitely a nominal change (along with the explanation) - and it was clearly a PR decision.

 

Certainly, it doesn't follow that since some changes were made, then all the requested changes (ordaining women to the priesthood in particular) are appropriate and necessary..

I am the first one to agree with this. In fact, I don't think that priesthood ordination for women will happen any time soon (if in fact it ever happens at all). This doesn't mean that change isn't necessary and appropriate in other ways. Even if part of that simply means going back and reviewing all of our gender affecting policies and determining which ones have no basis in scripture and moving from there to look at which ones if changed could create a more productive and inviting atmosphere for women in the Church.

 

That having been said, let me attempt to respond to your request. While there are certainly gender differences within the Church, I personally trust in God and his chosen leaders, more so than myself and my fellow members and agitators and pop culture, to determine whether those differences are either natural and healthy and to be promoted, or of little or no relevance to God's gospel plan and thus rightly ignored in lieu of more pressing and pertinent matters, or whether they are worthy of consideration and change.

 

In other words, for me to comply with your request would require that I invert where I currently place my trust for governance of God's kingdom. Doing so would counter-productively compromise what little humility I have, and cater to my pride and arrogance. So, I hope you will understand if I decline..

And that is my point Wade. You are unwilling to accept any request for change (no matter how small) and are willing to absolutely be critical of those women who struggle with these issues on the simple basis that they are struggling with them. When attitudes like this help reinforce issues that keep people from coming to Christ, it does become relevant to God's gospel plan. A hundred and eighty years ago, with Joseph Smith, the Church was ahead of the curve in many ways over women's issues. The Relief Society was set up as a parallel but autonomous organization to the priesthood. Since then, we haven't just stagnated, we have gone backwards, and now instead of being examples to our society and our communities of the way we should treat and view women in the Church and recognize their abilities, we have fallen far behind.

 

Ben M.

[smac97]

Smac writes:

 

 

 

 

But Smac, this reflects the problem. Women struggle in the Church over gender issues precisely because they have a hard time expressing their needs - their voices have not been heard.

I do not altogether agree with that. While the Church has room for improvement in many respects, including the role of women, I think it is a significant overstatement that the voices of women in the Church "have not been heard."

 

And while you may suggest that the ends don't justify the means, that does not mean that the progress achieved through this voice has not been good.

I concur that these changes have been "good." I nevertheless strongly oppose the repellant and inappropriate behaviors of the OW group.

 

Which may in fact mean that the ends did in fact justify the means.

I cannot agree to that. The "means" used by the OW group (demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice," affiliating with excommunicated apostates, intentionally disrupting and distracting from sacred convocations, defying the Church and trespassing onto and protesting on sacred ground, and so on) are offensive and inappropriate. That some good comes of wrong conduct does not retroactively justify that wrongful conduct.

How far does such retroactive justification go? I am curious as to your thoughts about the martyrdoms referenced in Alma 14. We can say that "good" came from that event. Do you therefore believe that the atrocities in that chapter were justified? Because some "good" came from them?

Joseph Smith was murdered, thus sealing his testimony with his own blood. Much "good" has come from that sealed testimony. Does that mean that his murderers are off the hook? Because some "good" came from Joseph's death?

I have a good friend who is recovering from an extended addiction to pornography. He has advised that part of his recovery has been that he has valued his relationship with his wife much more, and that his relationship with her is therefore stronger than it was before. Is my friend's long-term use of pornography therefore justified? Because some "good" has come from it?

There are countless examples in history, in scripture, and in our personal experiences where someone has done something bad, and then something "good" arose from it as a consequence. However, I generally have a very hard time with saying "Oh, well, as long as we can identify some sort of positive consequence to the wrongful conduct, we can therefore excuse - and even celebrate and endorse! - that wrongful conduct."

 

Especially since we remember that fully half the members of the Church (and the potential members of the Church) are women. When we put that into perspective - that it took this kind of effort to engage certain kinds of change in the Church is absolutely staggering.

First, I am not sure there is a one-to-one cause-and-effect relationship between the OW group and the recent developments you describe.

Second, the ends do not justify the means. Not in this case. Not in most cases.

Third, the "ends justify the means" rationale is scary. It can be used to rationalize just about any behavior, including conduct you would no doubt find repugnant. So I don't think it's reasonable to deploy it in those specific instances when you happen to like the "ends."

 

But in either case, (and it really doesn't matter how you view it), what is clear is that we should not dismiss the struggle that many women face within the Church in light of the gender gap issue over the fact that they should only respond to that struggle in a certain way.

First, I have never suggested that we should "dismiss" any such thing.

Second, I disagree that Latter-day Saints are free to utilize any means necessary to do what they want, or that they are not constrained to act "in a certain way." Latter-day Saints have made covenants, and are under obligations to honor those covenants. There is also the matter of basic standards of common decency and respect, which the OW group has transgressed in many ways.

Third, you are essentially advocating anarchy within the Church. I hate to be so blunt, but "the ends justify the means" is now, in your view, fair game for Latter-day Saints to use as a pretextual excuse to do whatever they want. Every disgruntled individual or group in the Church or out of it is now at liberty to trespass on sacred ground, to protest on sacred ground, to defame the Brethren, to defame the Saints, to wrest and abuse the Scriptures, and anything else they want to, as long as they can articulate some sort of link, however tenuous, between their wrongful conduct and some sort of perceived benefit or "good" stemming from it.

That is anarchy. Chaos. It undermines the framework of the Restored Gospel. It is antithetical to the concepts of sustaining the Brethren, of unity of the Saints, of the Lord leading the Church through His servants. The Church is to be at the mercy of protests? PR campaigns?

What about outright apostasy? Is open and direct opposition to the Church acceptable, as long as we can point to some causative relationship between it and some sort of subsequent "good?" Can desired ends justify apostate means?

What about violence? Is violence to affect change in the Church acceptable, as long as we can point to some causative relationship between it and some sort of subsequent "good?" Can desired ends justify violent means?

I do not believe these are unreasonable inquiries. The OW group has already proved it is willing to take measures even the most virulent of today's anti-Mormons will not (openly trespassing onto and protesting on the Church's sacred grounds). If the ends justify those means, then why not openly apostate behaviors? Why not violence? What is beyond the pale? Is there a pale?

 

Nor does your approach recognize an underlying tension that continues to exist - that is, in order to have a voice in an appropriate way, all of their discussion has to be mediated by men.

Not so. I recognize that "underlying tension" exists between some Latter-day Saints and the Church's current posture on priesthood ordination. There are lots of groups that have lots of hobby horse complaints about how the Church administers the Restored Gospel. My concern is not about those concerns, but about the profoundly unseemly actions taken by the OW group, and more recently about the "ends justify the means" excuses being presented in defense of those unseemly actions.

 

In the long run, since these women's voices have not been adequately heard, I am not sure that your distinction about an appropriate way matters.

Right. Because the ends justify the means.

I'm not willing to go along with that. I do not recognize the OW group as having authority to determine how the Church is to be run, or even what constitutes being "adequately heard."

Every crank or group of cranks can come up with the same sort of subjective rationalization for engaging in inappropriate conduct. They can just say "Yeah, but I haven't been adequately heard! And the ends justify the means, so I can do whatever I want!"

That is a recipe for disaster within the Church, and indeed within any social construct.

 

And I tend to agree with them on this point. If you want to have this occur in an appropriate way then you need to make sure that the women's voices are being heard in that appropriate way. This hasn't been happening, and until changes are made that will allow this, I don't see a lot of choices, do you?

Yes, I see a lot of choices. Faith. Prayer. Fasting. Humility. Discussion. Patience. There are all sorts of things we Latter-day Saints can do without resorting to publicly defaming the Church, disregarding revelation by demanding doctrinal changes and saying that "nothing less will suffice," affiliating with excommunicated apostates, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, intentionally disrupting and distracting from sacred convocations, and so on. The OW group has done all of these things and more.

I utterly reject the notion that the OW group gets to make demands of doctrinal change, or that they then get to engage in offensive and unseemly behavior, and then excuse that behavior by saying "I get to do whatever I want because, in my personal and self-serving estimation, my voice has not been 'adequately heard,' and because the ends justify the means."

 

What is interesting is that the groups that the Church has recently been discussing these issues with (like Mormon Women Stand) are also going about this in much the same way - they just seem to be publicly willing to stand a little closer to the line of orthodoxy.

MWS has not protested during sacred convocations.

MWS has not demanded female ordination, and publicly declared that "nothing less will suffice."

MWS has not openly and publicly defied the Church.

MWS has not trespassed onto sacred ground.

MWS has not protested on sacred ground.

MWS has not developed and distributed material critical of the Church.

MWS has not aligned itself with an excommunicated apostate, or invited an excommunicated apostate to be an honored guest and speaker and panel participant at its founding event.

In contrast, the OW group has done all of these things. It is absurd to suggest that the MWS approach is as slight as being "a little closer to the line of orthodoxy."

Further, the success of the MWS group in fostering communication with the Church to address women's issues belies your very troubling assertion that the OW group's more radical and offensive tactics are justified because "the ends justify the means."

 

They are tame by comparison to OW. OW, whatever faults it may have, made space for other groups and other dialogues that are not seen as so militant by comparison.

I question that. In any event, it does not excuse their offensive and inappropriate conduct. The ends do not justify the means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2014 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scott Loyd writes:

Where divine direction is present, such earthly dynamics as "gender gaps" cease to have relevance.

This would make sense except ... that it isn't equally applied is it. Remember when it was suggested that women can pray in Sacrament Meetings? Do you remember what the published reasoning was by the Church? Let me quote it for you:

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences.

 

The problem isn't over the issue of divine direction. We have a great deal of direction that isn't divine, and quite a bit of it is assumed to be divine when it simply isn't. And in this situation, earthly dynamics like gender gaps have very real relevance.

 

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac writes:

I do not altogether agree with that. While the Church has room for improvement in many respects, including the role of women, I think it is a significant overstatement that the voices of women in the Church "have not been heard."

I don't care whether you agree with it or not. I think that the evidence points to this. I think that the ongoing struggle with women in the Church points to this. I think that this is where the problem of you and I being men comes into play because I don't think you can relate to this issue very well.

I cannot agree to that. The "means" used by the OW group (demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice," affiliating with excommunicated apostates, intentionally disrupting and distracting from sacred convocations, defying the Church and trespassing onto and protesting on sacred ground, and so on) are offensive and inappropriate. That some good comes of wrong conduct does not retroactively justify that wrongful conduct.

I think at the same time that you have no moral basis to judge these women until you are working to resolve their complaints as best you can in an appropriate fashion.

How far does such retroactive justification go? I am curious as to your thoughts about the martyrdoms referenced in Alma 14. We can say that "good" came from that event. Do you therefore believe that the atrocities in that chapter were justified? Because some "good" came from them?

Let's just skip to the end game in this discussion, shall we? Was the fall of man good? Was the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ good? I think that you can talk all you want, but you will not make a black and white issue out of this.

 

What isn't really that amusing is your comparison of this action to violence. Let me ask a simple question. Are there, in your opinion, gender issues in the Church that need to be addressed? It is a simple and straight forward question. I won't go through the efforts (as I did with Wade) to have you point out what those issues are, or how to address them. Just the simple question of whether or not we have policies in the Church that make the Church a more difficult environment for some women than for men?

 

Your over the top caricatures do nothing for your argument.

 

Ben M.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski writes:

 

 

Sure. Giving women the priesthood would not define away sex differences.

It is that simple.

There was a time when almost none of the men in the Church were ordained to the priesthood (and when they were ordained, they were ordained to a single office, not to all of the offices). That changed with the introduction of the Endowment - when to get endowed, you had to be ordained at least an Elder (for the men) and so between 80 and 90 percent of the eligible men in the Church were rapidly ordained. But even there, it wasn't so gender driven as it is now. We had women who gave blessings. It was widely recognized that women held the priesthood. All it takes is a simple comparison of two separate statements to understand that a huge shift occurred in LDS thought - and it was a shift driven by the women. Here is Brigham Young in a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle in 1869:

"Why do you [the women of the church] not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders." (JoD 13:155)"

Here is Joseph Fielding Smith in 1946:

"While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted."

The contrast should be obvious. My main issue is that this hasn't always been this sort of gender driven distinction. It became that. And if part of the result of this discourse is a removal of that gender driven distinction, I think that we end up in a much better place.

 

But we aren't saying this. We have already gone back to that earlier language and suggested that women do hold the priesthood - they just aren't ordained to offices in that priesthood. Let me provide you with a few sources ok?

In 1880, John Taylor addressed the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had ordained women in the organization of the Relief Society:

 

And then, 1888, President Franklin D. Richards said:

 

In this case, the suggestion that was running in the church - particularly in the late 1800s, was that the Endowment ceremony extended priesthood to both women and men (although women were not ordained to a specific priesthood office). Then President of the Relief Society, Eliza R. Snow said in 1884:

 

Recognizing that women could be endowed without being married, this position was modified just a bit by Elder Talmage in 1912:

 

He added the notion here that being endowed gave a woman the shared priesthood of her future husband (if she was not married at the time). So it became more about the temple (in some ways) than it was about the husband. Part of this was to explain how women could perform ordinances and participate in the way they do in the temple without some sort of priesthood (and the answer was that they had some sort of priesthood).

There is a lot more that has been said about this topic. But, most interestingly, it resurfaced last year in a BYU Devotional by Elder Ballard (last August):

 

And this is what was quoted in the most recent General Conference by Elder Oaks:

 

 

So nowhere in any of this is your notion that women cannot have the priesthood - or your notion of some sort of ordained gender gap related to the priesthood. So I see your response as part of the problem. This desire to tell women that they cannot have the priesthood (as you so eloquently put it), is simply wrong - even when it is put sensitively. We have a history of recognizing that they have it, and a history of suppressing any visible way of using it.

 

 

According to our General Authorities, our Heavenly shares the same priesthood as our Heavenly Father.

 

 

 

 

I think I provided it. Don't you?

 

 

 

Right. And there are other similar circumstances, wouldn't you agree? Does anyone seriously consider the Sunday School President to be one of the top leadership positions in a unit anymore, and necessarily a priesthood calling? Good reviews of our policies are helpful, and if done with an eye towards the gender gap, could do a great deal. I think that making these changes would have a very positive affect.

 

But, I think we need to make real changes, and not simply declare that equality is impossible, and so on.

 

Ben M.

Thanks for your response- it was full of wonderful quotes, and I agree with every word except the one paragraph where you take me to task a little.

I have in fact asked my wife to stand in with me while blessing children, etc, because I was fully aware of these traditions and find them to be wonderful and completely ennobling for women and mankind in general.

But Ben, if you read those quotes carefully, nearly all of them except the Snow quote are actually stating that women do not "need" the priesthood to perform the ordinances in question. I could go line by line, but it's not necessary.

Indeed, if the First Presidency affirmed all these previous quotes as indicative of doctrine and proclaimed them in some kind of statement, I would be delighted.

In my household, that is exactly what I have taught my 3 now-adult daughters, one of whom is an ordinance worker, and we operate on those views in our tiny "unit" of the church.  We actually practice and teach those principles.  I think they should be widely taught in the church.

But in none of those quotes did it say that women should be or are ordained to the priesthood, or ever have been.  I think the distinction we make today between being "set apart" and being "ordained" was probably quite blurry in the early church, and perhaps it still is.  It is often a distinction without a difference, as I said in an earlier post.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63584-ordain-women-group-publishes-six-discussions-to-proselytize-for-its-agenda/?p=1209384948

 

I know you think I am an old fuddie-duddie, and certainly the old part is correct , but I completely agree with your argument, but not your conclusion, and frankly I don't know how you get that conclusion- I am assuming you are arguing in favor of ordaining women.

Edited June 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

OW, whatever faults it may have, made space for other groups and other dialogues that are not seen as so militant by comparison.

 

Ben M.

This might be the case if there had been no discussion at all over the years, but there has been. I grew up in NYC in the sixties. My father, younger brother and I were on a subway when the power went out. It was summer, very hot and stuffy. The lights went out, emergency lights were minimal. As a couple of passengers carefully made their way toward the windows (they didn’t want to get knifed) someone—there’s always one—screamed in a panic, “Open the window! Open the window!”

 

He didn’t need to do that.

 

I wouldn’t acknowledge OW as paving the way for the less conspicuous to be heard.

[USU78]

Who laid hands on Paul's head to give him the priesthood?

 

Acts 9: 

10 ¶And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

 

Just because it doesn't specifically say Ananias, in laying hands on Saul/Paul, ordained as well as blessed/healed him, doesn't mean he didn't.  In other words:  arguments from silence don't make a case, and you bear the burden of persuasion here.

[mfbukowski]

Does the Sunday School president or the YM's president get to meet with the Bishop as part of PEC?

 

I'm honestly asking as i have no idea.

Yes.

[CV75]

Given that there is precedent for ordination of women in scripture, support for the principle of equality regardless of gender in scripture, and a lack of specific revelation banning women from priesthood, I think I stand on solid ground. Tradition is simply not enough to establish the rightness of a practice, and tradition is the only thing there is to support the continued priesthood ban.

LOL... why not address what I actually said?

 

But since you've pulled this twice in a row, and just keep repeating disproved arguments that have no authentic basis, I won't expect you to!

 

CFR the ordination of women to priesthood office. The references for males being ordained to priesthood office have been posted.

[Benjamin McGuire]

mfbukowski,

 

I am not advocating that women be ordained to offices in the priesthood. In theory, if we accept the notion that women have the priesthood - that they have been endowed with the priesthood, then we could move on to a different kind of discourse, that fleshes out ways in which they can utilize that priesthood.

 

Ben M.