Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[ERayR]

You're also missing out on the "leader sign on" which are the additonal options and selections added to the menu of lds.org.

 

I know, that's why I can no longer have access to CHI #1.  For the past few years when I wanted to know I just signed on.

[Gray]

Looking past your disrespect to Gray, there is no evidence that anyone was "ordained."  It was priesthood through lineage not ordination.  Even the PA rep who did an excellent job on RadioWest this morning couldn't come up with any scriptural command to prohibit women from priesthood. And for heaven's sake, anyone who doesn't think the Bible has to be read through the prevailing culture where women could be owned isn't in any position to discuss the Bible.

 

Thank you. Great insights re: culture in the OT.

 

I listened to that interview too. That was a major stumbling point for the PA rep. No one seems to know why we're not ordaining women, only that we seem to have always done it that way. 

[Gray]

Governing body - as I said prestige The prestige of governing.

 

I think it's more about a lack of women's voices when considering policy and a lack of women's input and talents when seeking inspiration 

[Gray]

 

Judge =/= Bishop, but rather Chieftain*

 

*Source, American Jewish Translation, Tanakh

 

There are no bishops in Judaism, but modern bishops in the LDS church are likened unto judges in Israel

[Gray]

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?

 

The curse of Cain stuff is also in the POGP.

 

I think there are some unsustainable assumptions about revelation in the church, as if it's immune to influence of human biases and human assumptions. 

 

The endowment has undergone numerous changes over the years, anyway, so I don't think anyone is justified in taking too literal a stance on the content. 

[ERayR]

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by ERayR

[stemelbow]

Thank you. Great insights re: culture in the OT.

 

I listened to that interview too. That was a major stumbling point for the PA rep. No one seems to know why we're not ordaining women, only that we seem to have always done it that way.

I didn't see it as a stumbling point per se. It's refreshing to me to note that such honesty is promoted. I think too many times things such as, "well we're a church that runs on modern revelation and it's been revealed that women can't hold the priesthood. It's God's will." would have been said. Leaving it more open ended suggests it's really not the Church's position that people can't disagree (which is the point so many are running around clamoring about). Its more, as was stated the way it was said, the uncompromising tone that was problematic.

Edited June 18, 2014 by stemelbow

[Gray]

This is the most damning evidence against women being ordained.  Not that there is a commandment one way or another, but that there is no record in modern revelation of a woman being called to a priesthood office by God. 

And since we have numerous records of God speaking and directly calling men to priesthood offices that absence of his ever calling a woman to an office in revelation can't be dismissed as cultural bias, since an eternal God wouldn't have a cultural bias.

 

There is also nothing in modern revelation condemning homosexuality. Or for that matter, prohibiting women from holding the priesthood

[JLHPROF]

Women do not hold the Priesthood. They enter the Priesthood Order through the Temple and officiate in ordinances under the direction of those who do hold it (and the necessary keys).

 

This is true, but only until they receive their second anointings wherein they receive their own ordination as Queens and Priestesses.

In my opinion this is what Joseph probably referred to when he told the Relief Society that he would make them a kingdom of Priests, as opposed to calling women to ecclesiastical office like Bishop.  He wanted a temple society or Zion.  It was always his goal.  A society where consecration, temple ordinances, and all the higher laws of the gospel were lived openly in society.

 

When it comes to women and the priesthood it's a higher order that we should be focusing on.

[JLHPROF]

There is also nothing in modern revelation condemning homosexuality. Or for that matter, prohibiting women from holding the priesthood

 

This is ignoring my point.  If God wanted women to hold the priesthood, why didn't he call some by specific revelation (not just inspiration of culturally bias leaders) as he did hundreds of men.  God could easily have said - It is my will that Emma be ordained to the office of High Priest and Eliza be ordained as the Bishop of Nauvoo.

 

God isn't influenced by our cultural biases and can call whoever he wants.  But he has never called a woman to a priesthood office.  He has never told a prophet to call a woman to a priesthood office.  God isn't that absent minded or neglectful that he wouldn't call a woman if a woman was the best person for a calling.

[stemelbow]

This is ignoring my point.  If God wanted women to hold the priesthood, why didn't he call some by specific revelation (not just inspiration of culturally bias leaders) as he did hundreds of men.  God could easily have said - It is my will that Emma be ordained to the office of High Priest and Eliza be ordained as the Bishop of Nauvoo.

 

God isn't influenced by our cultural biases and can call whoever he wants.  But he has never called a woman to a priesthood office.  He has never told a prophet to call a woman to a priesthood office.  God isn't that absent minded or neglectful that he wouldn't call a woman if a woman was the best person for a calling.

He could have easily said, "Nah..it's not true that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existent and thsu they are cursed as to the priesthood". But He did not. Now we have a statement that clarifies past teachings even though claimed by revelation on the matter are not true.

[juliann]

Didn't have a chance to listen to Radio West yesterday, but my Facebook feed was full of people mocking the PR rep's performance, but then if it has to do with the church, many of my FB "friends" mock. Glad to see someone has a contrary opinion.

 

I find the vitriol shocking when they are in the position of needing to continually point out how respectful OW has always been. They know now that blogs are read by PA and it is a free for all. (Ironically, as they introduce "violence" to describe excommunication, I read the SP is getting death threats now.) That it has been directed towards the female PA rep who went on the radio show is even more disheartening.  She was in a no win situation but handled herself with dignity. They are even making fun of her supposed "primary voice" which is bizarre but shows the extent of the unbridled rage. I understand the upset, but, again, this is so self-defeating.  It is almost as if they wake up every morning and say "what Mormon official can we hate today?"  But it makes it easy to see why OW is in the situation it is in. And it also demonstrates how self-destructive those are who only want to throw the same thing back at them.

Juliann, have you ever used the Corpus of LDS General Conference Talks? Do a word search on the words "the priesthood." You'll discover that particular coupling has been used extensively since the early days of the church, though its use seems to have spiked in the 1960s.

 I haven't done a word search but spiking in the 60s makes sense...that is when "women's lib" emerged.  I sense another correlation with the RS Magazine, as well.  Setting aside the cultural baggage (which at this distance can appear almost cute), we were talked to like complete people. Working, influencial (and often non-LDS) women were lauded each month, women's achievements in the world were laid out with pride. One of the more striking things I saw was extended exhortation for women to be able to support themselves, then it was going to vocational school rather than college. Notice was taken of women's rights advancement...like the first woman to be on a jury in England. Motherhood was not pounded into us as our real purpose in life, it was just taken for granted while they talked about other things. Housekeeping advice were more common than motherhood stuff, the emphasis was on homemaking. 

 

So while society forced women into the home, the church didn't need to put on the pressure, and provided a more expansive and free wheeling church life. But when society allowed them into the workplace into higher paying jobs, the church picked up the role society had provided to put limits on women's purpose.  

Edited June 18, 2014 by juliann

[halconero]

Again, I fail to see the relevance. She was not rebuked based on her gender.

I don't think Deborah was rebuked.

Judges 4:4

Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Having recently finished a course in Hebrew Bible at UofT, the term Judge refers to a socio-political station in the confederacy of tribes which existed in Israel at the time.

With regards to her being a prophetess...well you're applying Latter-day Saint concepts to a word that does have any such connotations. Jewish rabbis today, and ancient Israelites back then did not conceive prophecy as being equated with priesthood office. Only the Levites, and more specifically the Coheb held the priesthood to officiate in sacred rites. The ancient Israelites didn't even consider famous prophets such as Elijah, Isaiah, or Malachi to hold the priesthood.

[Kenngo1969]

I think it's more about a lack of women's voices when considering policy and a lack of women's input and talents when seeking inspiration 

OK, but Handbook 2: Administering The Church explicitly says that Bishops are to actively counsel with all members of the Ward Council when making decisions, the flip side of that counsel being a strong implication that it's not supposed to be subject merely to a Bishop's "whim," to not seek counsel from these leaders simply because he doesn't feel like it (even though I grant you that some Bishops are probably better at seeking and incorporating the counsel of all Ward Council members than others).  The Ward Council includes a Primary President, a Relief Society President, and a Young Women's President.  I don't know how Church councils work on the general level, but I would be surprised (to say the least) if Church leadership gave a directive to the rank-and-file leadership in Handbook 2, yet did not follow a similar pattern with respect to general Church-wide leadership. 

[juliann]

 

God isn't influenced by our cultural biases and can call whoever he wants.  But he has never called a woman to a priesthood office.  He has never told a prophet to call a woman to a priesthood office.  God isn't that absent minded or neglectful that he wouldn't call a woman if a woman was the best person for a calling.

Then it is odd that even Joseph spoke of the people not being ready for some things. That is a theme that runs through scripture and our own history. God has always had to work with our cultural biases. Ironically, tne of the most commonly used justifications for the priesthood ban was that "we weren't ready for it", in other words, bigotry had to be overcome for God to act by the very people who claim that God would have ordained women cause it was the right thing to do even though they could legally be beaten by husbands for being uppity. 

[USU78]

Bishops are called to be "judges in Israel"

 

Please, though, don't conflate this cultural usage with the political title "Judge" in the Book of Judges, or Deborah's appointment to that position.

 

We can safely ignore the old Seminary usage that Deborah was only appointed Judge in default of righteous men to fill the position.

[Kenngo1969]

Having recently finished a course in Hebrew Bible at UofT, the term Judge refers to a socio-political station in the confederacy of tribes which existed in Israel at the time. ...

 

You might wish to clarify, for us xenophobic, knuckle-dragging, "ugly 'mericans" south of the border that the "T" in "UofT" stands for Toronto and not for Texas.  Just sayin'!

Edited June 18, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

There is also nothing in modern revelation condemning homosexuality.

 

Because no conference address by any Apostle, Seventy or First Presidency Member was ever of any particular significance?

[BlueDreams]

I have exactly 5 minutes so this is a shorty.

There are no bishops in Judaism, but modern bishops in the LDS church are likened unto judges in Israel

 

What Juliann said. Plus I think the term may be more in lines with the 1 ne 12:9 than the very socio-political outlook that much of the OT takes on the Judge title. Plus I find it interesting that Deborah's line in her victory chant wasn't, I arose a judge/prophetess in Israel but I arose a mother in israel (Judges 5:7) and, no I don't think that a literal motherhood but a contextual role/description she played in raising up israel from despair. Mother, to me, is a term too hitched up to birth/childrearing.  

 

Then how did 19th century myths about the origins of black people make it into the text of canonized scripture?......

The curse of Cain stuff is also in the POGP.

 

No, I'd argue, that we read curse of Cain stuff into the text. A careful reading without a 19th+ century expectation about race and skin color equivalency doesn't warrant it. And If I remember correctly, Cain's curse is the most sketchy connection. There isn't even a reference to him having a skin a darkness, blackness, etc in there. Go check. The closest is a reference to his countenance falling (pre cursing) and the lord setting a mark on him (with no explanation as to what that mark was whatsoever)

 

Kay, time to run.

With luv,

BD

[Avatar4321]

There is also nothing in modern revelation condemning homosexuality. Or for that matter, prohibiting women from holding the priesthood

 

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it. (D&C 59:6).

 

Sure, nothing condemning all sexual sin.

[Storm Rider]

The curse of Cain stuff is also in the POGP.

 

I think there are some unsustainable assumptions about revelation in the church, as if it's immune to influence of human biases and human assumptions. 

 

The endowment has undergone numerous changes over the years, anyway, so I don't think anyone is justified in taking too literal a stance on the content. 

 

You are not just asserting that we cannot take "too literal a stance on the content"; you are asserting you cannot take anything seriously.  The only logical conclusion is that the OT, the NT, and all other time periods were just unenlightened fools and not nearly as sophisticated as those few individuals that proclaim that gay sex is good and women are the exact equal of man in all ways and in all things.  This is not enlightenment, but sheer lunacy.  I don't care how many times you close you eyes and tell yourself that you are right and you know better than all other generations, races, and peoples, it is still wrong.  

 

As I write that I understand that I am not of the enlightened few that support your righteous, strike that, superior cause.  I guess that I am just an old numskull of limited vision to appreciate the snake oil that is being peddled here.  

[halconero]

There is no real doubt that Junia and Phoebe were women - actually no doubt at all about Phoebe, and no legitimate doubt about Junia

I agree, they were women. What I have trouble with is the application of Latter-day Saint concepts and notions to 1st century Christianity. Don't get me wrong, I believe that this Church is the restored institution that existed in the time after Christ's death, but that doesn't mean that terms we use in our Church match up with phonetically identical terms in the Bible.

At the time period of the New Testament's earliest writings, the term apostle did not have the same weight connotations it has in our faith, or even the Catholic/Orthodox faiths. It simply meant "messenger" or "envoy." The term deacon simply meant "one who serves," "waiting-man," or "servant." One might cite scriptures such as Ephesians to counter this, but it must be pointed out that Ephesians was 1) most likely not written by Paul and 2) it is a later scripture in the Bible when compared to the earlier epistles and exhibits a much more organized and hierarchical ecclesiastical structure, where words such as apostle or deacon have a different weight to them than Paul's earlier epistles.

When we see apostle, teacher, prophet, or judge in the Bible, we tend to apply modern, Latter-day Saint notions to those where we should not.

With regards to Bishops being considered "Judges in Israel," we should in no way equate this term with the position of Judge in the Old Testament. "Shofet" in the context of the books of Judges, simply means military leader or one who presides at legal meetings. While the latter part of the definition might indicate spiritual presiding, such is not the case. The Israel we refer to in Judges is a socio-political entity, and such judgement is regarded to have been with militaristic or tribal law.

While we call Bishops judges, both this term and that of "Israel" have far different meanings currently. Israel for Latter-day Saints is a spiritual entity as evidences by Patriarchal blessings, Restorationist scripture, and temple ordinances. Latter-day Saints are continuationists (as opposed to supersessionists) in our belief that God's covenant with Israel ceased at the advent of Christ. However, current Israel is not a political entity, but a spiritual one. Judges therefore render spiritual judgement, a duty not prescribed in the Old Testament.

[juliann]

Having recently finished a course in Hebrew Bible at UofT, the term Judge refers to a socio-political station in the confederacy of tribes which existed in Israel at the time.

With regards to her being a prophetess...well you're applying Latter-day Saint concepts to a word that does have any such connotations. Jewish rabbis today, and ancient Israelites back then did not conceive prophecy as being equated with priesthood office. Only the Levites, and more specifically the Coheb held the priesthood to officiate in sacred rites. The ancient Israelites didn't even consider famous prophets such as Elijah, Isaiah, or Malachi to hold the priesthood.

I don't think it is Gray who is inserting current priesthood structure into the OT.  That tends to be the position taken by those claiming the Bible proves only men can have it.  

 

I agree, they were women. What I have trouble with is the application of Latter-day Saint concepts and notions to 1st century Christianity. Don't get me wrong, I believe that this Church is the restored institution that existed in the time after Christ's death, but that doesn't mean that terms we use in our Church match up with phonetically identical terms in the Bible.

 

I think you may be missing the point.  Mormon belief has always included the idea that Joseph organized the church exactly like early Christianity. Much is made of the use of the same titles, which as you say, sometimes don't correlate with current usage. So that is a general problem, still stated in conference talks.

 

But ultimately, it doesn't matter what a word meant or didn't mean in the NT as long as the same word is used for both sexes.  The same debate goes on with Paul's claim to Apostle as it does for Junia. It is just that we don't consider Junia to be in Paul's league because she is a woman so she is always kicked to the curb before any serious consideration. The words are the same. Gender bias is what is being read back into the NT, not just word meaning.

Edited June 18, 2014 by juliann

[Rain]

OK, but Handbook 2: Administering The Church explicitly says that Bishops are to actively counsel with all members of the Ward Council when making decisions, the flip side of that counsel being a strong implication that it's not supposed to be subject merely to a Bishop's "whim," to not seek counsel from these leaders simply because he doesn't feel like it (even though I grant you that some Bishops are probably better at seeking and incorporating the counsel of all Ward Council members than others).  The Ward Council includes a Primary President, a Relief Society President, and a Young Women's President.  I don't know how Church councils work on the general level, but I would be surprised (to say the least) if Church leadership gave a directive to the rank-and-file leadership in Handbook 2, yet did not follow a similar pattern with respect to general Church-wide leadership. 

 

Yes, and Elder Ballard has given 2 talks on it, written a book about it and revised his book about it.  I'm sure if I were to do a search I could find other talks on it as well.  If a ward/stake is not using the women for inspiration and direction it is not because of how the church is set up, but because of how that wards specific councils are not using what they should be using. This isn't just a mens/bishop problem.  I have found that lots of leaders and presidents don't know how to use their councils. including RS and primary presidents.    

[Avatar4321]

Having recently finished a course in Hebrew Bible at UofT, the term Judge refers to a socio-political station in the confederacy of tribes which existed in Israel at the time.

With regards to her being a prophetess...well you're applying Latter-day Saint concepts to a word that does have any such connotations. Jewish rabbis today, and ancient Israelites back then did not conceive prophecy as being equated with priesthood office. Only the Levites, and more specifically the Coheb held the priesthood to officiate in sacred rites. The ancient Israelites didn't even consider famous prophets such as Elijah, Isaiah, or Malachi to hold the priesthood.

 

Technically even we don't equal prophecy as being equated with priesthood. We call President Monson The Prophet, but that's not the name of His office. His Office is Apostle with a specific calling to be President of the High Priesthood. In their callings, the First Presidency and Twelve as sustained as Prophets, seers, and revelators.

 

In fact, Joseph Smith and countless other prophets and Apostles were trying to get this people to be a people of prophets. We become prophets when we recieve the Spirit of Prophecy. And a Spirit of Prophecy is a testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

There is a reason the Lord established a School of the Prophets in Kirtland. It was to train. specifically, the priesthood at that time how to be prophets.

If you think about it, the Spirit of Prophecy is very prevelant in the Church. We see it manifested at least once a month on the first sunday of the month during our testimony meeting.

 

There are no limits on women receiving the Gift of Prophecy. Once they do, they are prophetesses. If a woman can honestly say "I know by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Savior, the Son of God who atoned for the sins of the world" that woman is a prophetess because she has recieved the Spirit of prophecy.

 

Now, there are many of us who need to further develop this gift. The problem we often have is we often confuse being a prophet with being a seer.