Brian 2.0 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Question What is wrong with how it is done now? There is plenty to do for all. The discontent appears to me as coming from a perceived prestige in holding certain priesthood offices. Having served in a bishopric and as a ward clerk a couple of times I can assure you that if their is any prestige it is expensive in terms of time spent and sacrifices made.I think it's less about prestige as it is the reality that women cannot serve in the governing body of the church, which is the Priesthood. And they view that restriction as a man made restriction.
ERayR Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 While I have no doubt some seek it for the prestige attached to it, there are other valid, honoured by our own church leaders reasons to desire the Priesthood. A great deal of effort in my opinion is put into getting boys and young men to do just that. It should hardly be surpring then that girls and young women and women listening to the same talks and lessons as well as having their own about valuing and honouring the Priesthood see it as a good thing to have and therefore begin to seek after it like Abraham in their minds:2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a high Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. I have an uncle, a convert, who died as a relatively young man. (late 30's as I remember) I was in my early twenties and was visiting with him one evening shortly before his death and in the course of our conversation he said to me "If I had it to do all over again, knowing what I know now I don't know if I would have the courage to join the church again". That was from a man who at the time was facing his own mortality and had given much thought to the responsibilities of Church membership and priesthood responsibilities placed on him. Over the subsequent decades I have thought and meditated on what he told me. Perhaps we do present it as an honor instead of stressing the duties and consequences of having that priesthood that makes one a servant of all. You know kind of like Jesus Christ.. Can you just imagine the mass exodus if we really brought our membership face to face with it in that manner. 1
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) I think it's less about prestige as it is the reality that women cannot serve in the governing body of the church, which is the Priesthood. And they view that restriction as a man made restriction. I think this is a good case of projection. We learn in the temple that the women excluded herself from the governing body all on her own doing. She restricted herself and now is blaming us. <ducks and runs> Edited June 17, 2014 by Zakuska
Brian 2.0 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 I think this is a good case of projection. We learn in the temple that the women excluded herself from the governing body all on her own doing. She restricted herself and now is blaming us. <ducks and runs> Wait, what? 1
ERayR Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 I think it's less about prestige as it is the reality that women cannot serve in the governing body of the church, which is the Priesthood. And they view that restriction as a man made restriction. Governing body - as I said prestige The prestige of governing.
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 66 pages, is this a record?No. The record is held by the west temple easement through temple square. Which lasted through 3 iterations and version of the board.
juliann Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Cal, I wasnt saying that Miraim had a "priesthood right" by blood even though she was a woman. I was just eluding to the fact that she could invoke it being Aarons blood sister. BUt not even that was enough.. This is nonsense. 2
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Wait, what?The law of obedience. The woman ate the fruit first and thus is put under oath and subjetion to her husband then her husband is in subjection to the Lord. 3
Brian 2.0 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) Question What is wrong with how it is done now? There is plenty to do for all. The discontent appears to me as coming from a perceived prestige in holding certain priesthood offices. Having served in a bishopric and as a ward clerk a couple of times I can assure you that if their is any prestige it is expensive in terms of time spent and sacrifices made. Also... I've heard this argument before and I wish it wasn't used. If Mormons all the sudden were not allowed to run for public office... they couldn't be part of the governing body that make laws and policy decisions for the cities and communities these very Mormons lived in... and non-Mormon politicians said, "Why do you want to hold public office? It's a thankless job, not a lot of pay, you get accused of all sorts of things... no one likes politicians, why do you want to be one? I know a lot of Mormons who are happy they aren't politicians." Would that be a good argument? No way. That argument should be abandoned. There's plenty of better ones out there. Edited June 17, 2014 by Brian 2.0 4
juliann Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Wait, what?Not having priesthood goes back to Eve eating the apple, you see. Which the heaven's applauded. Right before they punished her which apparently included making sure she would never be a Sunday School President. Or something. We are in the twilight zone of Bible exegesis with your eyes closed. 1
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) This is nonsense.I don't think you are getting what im trying to say juliann. My words keep getting in the way. Yes I realize in Bible times where women could be owned and had zero property rights etc etc. But lets put a modern liberated woman in her shoes. Would she not try and invoke her blood right ? Just as OW is trying to do? Yes the women never had a blood right in "ancient times" but I wouldn't put it past a modern Jewish women to try and use it. Edited June 17, 2014 by Zakuska 1
Brian 2.0 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 The law of obedience. The woman ate the fruit first and thus is put under oath and subjetion to her husband then her husband is in subjection to the Lord. Got it. So it's the woman's fault women don't have the Priesthood.
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Got it. So it's the woman's fault women don't have the Priesthood. My understanding yes.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 That is really interesting. Is there a written link that covers what the was said in the interview, or is it only available on audio?Radio West doesn't type up summaries of conversations. It's at 22:15 in the conversation if you wanted to hear what Sister Isom had to say about it. 1
USU78 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Judge is not a priesthood office. It's comparable to Bishops Prophet is not a priesthood office. Then we shouldn't have a problem with having a woman as president of the church It's debatable whether there was a female deacon (Pheobe) or a female apostle (Junia) in the Bible. It's not debatable. The Bible identifies a female deacon. In fact IIRC the only Deacon identified by name in scripture is Phoebe. What we do know is that when God said "go out and ordain xyz" to the early apostles and to Joseph Smith he specifically named men. Not surprising given the culture. Judge =/= Bishop, but rather Chieftain* *Source, American Jewish Translation, Tanakh 1
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Original sin is back!No.... I fully suspect that the Lord will put down all rule just like he has prophesied to do and the Woman will be restored to her rightful place before the Lord and subject to non but he. Im open to the fact that women will be ordained but its not going to happen till a new revelation comes. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 No.... I fully suspect that the Lord will put down all rule just like he has prophesied to do and the Woman will be restored to her rightful place before the Lord and subject to non but he. Im open to the fact that women will be ordained but its not going to happen till a new revelation comes. It sounds strikingly similar to the curse of cain doctrine on blacks which the church has disavowed as non-doctrinal. 1
Calm Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 I have an uncle, a convert, who died as a relatively young man. (late 30's as I remember) I was in my early twenties and was visiting with him one evening shortly before his death and in the course of our conversation he said to me "If I had it to do all over again, knowing what I know now I don't know if I would have the courage to join the church again". That was from a man who at the time was facing his own mortality and had given much thought to the responsibilities of Church membership and priesthood responsibilities placed on him. Over the subsequent decades I have thought and meditated on what he told me. Perhaps we do present it as an honor instead of stressing the duties and consequences of having that priesthood that makes one a servant of all. You know kind of like Jesus Christ.. Can you just imagine the mass exodus if we really brought our membership face to face with it in that manner.I think at least some of this would be a very good idea, something along the lines of being a Chosen People for Israel meant God allowed harsh punishments to come their way when they strayed.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 It sounds strikingly similar to the curse of cain doctrine on blacks which the church has disavowed as non-doctrinal.Save, there were many many differences.
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) It sounds strikingly similar to the curse of cain doctrine on blacks which the church has disavowed as non-doctrinal.Curse of cain seems to have come into the church through protestantism as a justification for slavery and many of the early converts coming from that background. Women being subject to their husbands is about as doctrinaly solid as you can get.Its codified into the temple play after all. I'm concerned by a lot of the responses pertainig to this on this thread. Are people not taking their temple convenants very seriously? Or not really meaning what they say they mean when they make them? Edited June 17, 2014 by Zakuska 2
JLHPROF Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Yet the word used for Deacon is masculine, both Junia and Phoebe have masculine name equivalents. Typos happen.And I don't think God is bound by cultural norms. When God says specifically "Hey Joseph, do this" I don't think Joseph's biases get applied. It is very important that when you are defending the church you use arguments that can be sustained. This can't be. The first was a bit of speculation based on the arguments on the topic in wikipedia (I know, not the best source) but that's why I left it as speculation rather than fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_(Bible) The second was clearly written as my own opinion and so needs no sustainable references. But I stand by my opinion. If God speaks directly (thus saith the Lord) I think he has a little more objectivity than to be swayed by the culture of the day.However, if I want to state something as clear fact to defend the Church I will be sure to back it up with references. Thanks for the reminder.
changed Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) I think this is a good case of projection. We learn in the temple that the women excluded herself from the governing body all on her own doing. She restricted herself and now is blaming us. <ducks and runs> She figured out what needed to be done first, and did it... Adam (and men) apparently needed to learn how to lead, and the best way to learn something, is to do it The guys obviously need help, so women were given the role of trying to help them. Edited June 17, 2014 by changed 2
changed Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Curse of cain seems to have come into the church through protestantism as a justification for slavery and many of the early converts coming from that background. Women being subject to their husbands is about as doctrinaly solid as you can get.Its codified into the temple play after all.Have you seen the newest film? I thought Eve was portrayed as a more powerful figure in it... just my opinion.
Recommended Posts