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

[juliann]

Well, it seems you are reading more into my words than what was intended with the "you guys" comment. Oh well, we can let that go. Sometimes I had wondered were you stood with this all. I won't lie about that.

 

So what is the point of all this? Do you think women should be ordained and that culture is the reason it has not happened?

Sorry for misunderstanding you.  I leave the ordination part up to leadership, moderate feminists don't think that trying to establish ourselves by demanding men do it is even a feminist position. Like I said, II don't think women have been restored to their place and I do attribute that to culture for the most part. But it also means we as women have to take the responsibility of searching and seeking. That is happening and I have to give OW some credit for at least getting it on the table. 

 

What I would like to see from our side is an openness to ongoing restoration and revelation. So we would be saying if the Lord thinks the time has come from women to be ordained, I will fully support it instead of the insults, bad scholarship, and NO NO NO NO NO NEVER EVER stuff.  I really, really, really wish men would acknowledge the awesomeness of the priesthood by realizing that everybody should want it instead of the knee jerk "oh, you don't need it," "It's only to bless others and to put boxes in moving bans anyway you little sillies,"  What a different conversation that would be! And it would strengthen the importance of the priesthood without giving up anything.

[awyatt]

The church’s public-relations wing has entertained "other feminists who have come in, and we’ve had really meaningful conversations, really important conversations," the spokeswoman said. "But when you use a grammatical ultimatum — Ordain Women — that presents a problem. ... It’s really a matter of intent, a matter of method."

I think "grammatical ultimatum" is a reference to the "and nothing less (that female ordination) will suffice" and "unequivocal call for complete equality and the ordination of Mormon women."

Smac, I read it differently than you. The aside mention of "Ordain Women" was done as an explanation of what the spokeswoman saw as a "grammatical ultimatum." In other words, the groups very name is a command -- an ultimatum. It isn't a reference to anything else except the ultimatum implicit within the name of the group itself.

 

It is also clear that the Church (via the spokeswoman) sees the issue as with intent (to have women be ordained) and the "methods" used to realize that intent. Change the methods (as many agree) and change the intent (ask for dialog, don't demand what is viewed as antithetical to the traditional concept of priesthood) and progress might be possible.

 

-Allen

[juliann]

It is not that women getting the priesthood diminishes the priesthood. I mean if men could give birth would that diminish women giving birth? No. But that is impossible for men to give birth and nothing is going to change that. So it comes down to roles. Call me old fashion. But that is how I see it. I also am willing to change my view upon receiving greater light and knowledge on the matter.

 

Setting aside that I think comparing a short lived and painful biological process to priesthood is part of the problem, women do not create tortured rationales to explain why men shouldn't share in that day's blessing. I'm quite sure all of us would be very glad to share it. I'm also quite sure that men would refuse it. So this isn't an effective analogy. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, which is women and priesthood. So when that topic is diverted into something else, it will be perceived as evasive.

[Zakuska]

I really, really, really wish men would acknowledge the awesomeness of the priesthood by realizing that everybody should want it instead of the knee jerk "oh, you don't need it," "It's only to bless others and to put boxes in moving bans anyway you little sillies,"  What a different conversation that would be! And it would strengthen the importance of the priesthood without giving up anything.

I think it would be so meaningful and awesome for two loving parents a Father and a Mother to be able to give their screaming child who has an ear ache an anointing and a blessing in the middle of the night before they take them to the instacare without having to call and wake up the bishop or a home teaching companion or other male family member to come help.  Talk about spreading blessings around! All these "technicalities" and "rules" we humans try and place on the awesome powers of God need to be removed. Lets get rid of ward boundaries as well.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it would be so meaningful and awesome for two loving parents a Father and a Mother to be able to give their screaming child who has an ear ache an anointing and a blessing in the middle of the night before they take them to the instacare without having to call and wake up the bishop or a home teaching companion or other male family member to come help.  Talk about spreading blessings around! All these "technicalities" and "rules" we humans try and place on the awesome powers of God need to be removed. Lets get rid of ward boundaries as well.

From "The Family Guidebook," p. 23:

 

 

Administering to the Sick

Only men who hold the Melchizedek

Priesthood may administer to the sick

or afflicted. Normally, two or more

administer together, but one may do

it alone. If consecrated oil is not avail-

able, a man who holds the Melchiz-

edek Priesthood may give a blessing

by the authority of the priesthood.

 

Bold emphasis mine.

[Tacenda]

 

From "The Family Guidebook," p. 23:

 

 

Bold emphasis mine.

 

Legalism in the church is hard to swallow for some. 

[Zakuska]

 

From "The Family Guidebook," p. 23:

 

 

Bold emphasis mine.

 

Thanks for sharing that one Scott. I'll add it to my list of books  and manuals I need to purchase and have on my shelf.  That might be a good lesson to have in our Priesthood Quorum at the end of the year when we finish all the lessons and need one.  I'll suggest it to our EQ President. 

Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[Tacenda]

Legalism in the church is hard to swallow for some. 

I said this not in anger really, just a sad feeling that a mother can't even help give her child a blessing with her husband.  When there was a time that she could in the early church.  What has happened?

Edited June 18, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for sharing that one Scott. I'll add it to my list of books  and manuals I need to purchase and have on my shelf.

Or you can download it to your iPhone or other device as part of the free Gospel Library app. That's what I do.

 

Another noteworthy but perhaps little known fact from that passage: a priesthood blessing may be given without the use of consecrated oil if none is available. Good to know in times of emergency.

[Zakuska]

I said this not in anger really, just a feeling that once again, women aren't even able to help give a child a blessing with her husband. 

And I think taking into account that Healing and blessing the sick with concecrated oil was Joseph's Original intent with the Releif Society. This may want to be addresses inlight of all this Halabaloo...

 

With women performing anointings in the temple (purly a function of the Melq. Priesthood)  What is it going to hurt to allow a woman to perform an anoniting and a blessing with concecrated oil with her husband?  Im sure it would be a huge comfort to a worried mother to know that she was able to do this for her sick child. 

 

How about all the single mothers who find themselves with a sick child and have to worry about calling around and arranging a blessing for her child on top of worrying about getting them to a doctors office? She must feel completely helpless and at the mercy of her male counterparts in such cases.  I know I would if I had to depend so much on others.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[ksfisher]

I said this not in anger really, just a sad feeling that a mother can't even help give her child a blessing with her husband.  When there was a time that she could in the early church.  What has happened?

 

Neither can she baptize the child, give the child the gift of the Holy Ghost, set the child apart as a missionary, or ordain the child a high priest (when the child is grown up of course).  Raising a child is a process, not an event.  Just because one is not directly involved in one event doesn't in any way detract from ones participation in the process.  I doubt that I will ever be the one to seal any of my children to their eternal companion, but that doesn't in any way detract from my participation in that event.

[JLHPROF]

I said this not in anger really, just a sad feeling that a mother can't even help give her child a blessing with her husband.  When there was a time that she could in the early church.  What has happened?

 

Of course a woman can give her child a blessing with her husband.  What she can't do is bestow a name, specifically the family name and birthright.  It's the same reason that Christ is known as the heir of God and not the heir of Mary and receives his inheritance from the Father not the Mother.

 

But if my child was sick I would absolutely want my wife's faith added to the blessing.  It's usually more powerful than mine anyway.

[Buzzard]

It is only In Hebrews where we get serious talk about priesthood. In most of the NT, it is unspoken (which seems odd if it was of great importance to all) or not a factor. Jesus calls people, he doesn't ordain them as far as what we have goes. Deacon was an adult position. It would actually make more sense, under Mormon usage, that NT women were also deacons. They were the head of households, thus likely the head of house churches in a very real sense. They would certainly be doing the serving (or their slaves under their direction) when what we think of as sacrament now was a meal. And women's studies are being taken seriously now in Bible scholarship, they weren't at all when I began.

 

 

Jesus would seem to disagree with you: John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,"

Edited June 18, 2014 by Buzzard

[Zakuska]

 

From "The Family Guidebook," p. 23:

 

Administering to the Sick

Only men who hold the Melchizedek

Priesthood may administer to the sick

or afflicted. Normally, two or more

administer together, but one may do

it alone. If consecrated oil is not avail-

able, a man who holds the Melchiz-

edek Priesthood may give a blessing

by the authority of the priesthood.

 

Lets go back to Scotts quote and Ill bold my part for emphesis.

 

Josephs Smiths original intent was for the releif society to heal the sick with concecrated oil.  Women already anoint other women in the temple with concecrated oil (Purely a function of the Melq. Priesthood) so why are they not allowed to follow Joseph Smiths original intent in todays church pertaining to healing of the sick?

 

So we have a dilemna here. The only explanation I can think of is that back in the 60's as a move against the Womens Liberation movements the Bretheren put a kabbosh on it to keep feminists in check.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Lets go back to Scotts quote and Ill bold my part for emphesis.

 

Josephs Smiths original intent was for the releif society to heal the sick with concecrated oil.  Women already anoint other women in the temple with concecrated oil (Purely a function of the Melq. Priesthood) so why are they not allowed to follow Joseph Smiths original intent in todays church pertaining to healing of the sick?

 

So we have a dilemna here. The only explanation I can think of is that back in the 60's as a move against the Women liberation movements the Bretheren put a kabbosh on it to keep feminists in check.

You really think women in the Church were blessing the sick with consecrated oil in the '60s?

 

I was born in 1954 and grew up in the '60s. I assure you nobody within my acquaintance, old or young, had ever heard of such a thing.

 

Furthermore, nothing in my family history even alludes to such a thing. My mother would tell stories about her parents -- who died decades before I was born -- and how her mother relied on her father to heal her and the family by the power of the priesthood. There is nothing that even remotely hints of my grandmother doing such a thing.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

So then... perhaps this originated with BY like the Priesthood ban for blacks?

[Duncan]

I said this not in anger really, just a sad feeling that a mother can't even help give her child a blessing with her husband.  When there was a time that she could in the early church.  What has happened?

 

 

she can take you to the Hospital!!! When I was in Hospital last fall my Mum stayed for the entire time, she didn't need to and she didn't participate in the blessing but she was a blessing!

[juliann]

Jesus would seem to disagree with you: John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,"

 

And you read the Mormon meaning of ordain into that, just as we try to do with deacon, elder, etc. Does he speak of an ordinance/ritual behind this? Does he ever? Do the other gospel writers?  Yet they speak of temple ritual....

 

That is why ordained is often translated as appointed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

What I would like to see from our side is an openness to ongoing restoration and revelation. So we would be saying if the Lord thinks the time has come from women to be ordained, I will fully support it instead of the insults, bad scholarship, and NO NO NO NO NO NEVER EVER stuff.  I really, really, really wish men would acknowledge the awesomeness of the priesthood by realizing that everybody should want it instead of the knee jerk "oh, you don't need it," "It's only to bless others and to put boxes in moving bans anyway you little sillies,"  What a different conversation that would be! And it would strengthen the importance of the priesthood without giving up anything.

I am for the revelation and restoration too. But the reality is that you really don't need it. Is that really a good answer for not giving it to women? No. And that is not my position. If women are to receive it I won't have an issue with it. I just thought there had been a president set. And as far a I knew the specifics of women not getting the priesthood in the same capacity as men was not cultural. Somethings that you have brought up definitely are cultural though and those will change and I doubt anybody will make a fuss about them.

 

I think really the issue I have is the same as Smac, that the "less than nothing will suffice". That really is a poopy attitude to have.

 

And unfortunately feminism has been hijacked by radicals and so it has gotten a bad rap. And I have a hard time sometimes telling the difference between classical feminists and the 60's radical feminist.

[Zakuska]

You really think women in the Church were blessing the sick with consecrated oil in the '60s?

 

I was born in 1954 and grew up in the '60s. I assure you nobody within my acquaintance, old or young, had ever heard of such a thing.

 

Furthermore, nothing in my family history even alludes to such a thing. My mother would tell stories about her parents -- who died decades before I was born -- and how her mother relied on her father to heal her and the family by the power of the priesthood. There is nothing that even remotely hints of my grandmother doing such a thing.

 

Read Quinn  The Releif society was originally given the Priesthood (or should I say Joseph anounced his intentions to give it) and the women were to heal with concecrated oil.  Somewhere between Joseph Smith organizing the RS and the 60s the practice was Kabboshed.

 

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

 

This could have been another hot button topic that got the Prophet killed, or at least played into it like the Slavery issue.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[frank_jessop]

And you know this how? What is preached at the pulpit is official doctrine. And I think many of those are revelations. The big difference is that they most are not canonized. I guess you think that what is taught at the pulpit is mere opinion on a matter. If that is the case why have GC at all?

Official statement of the LDS Church "Approaching Mormon Doctrine":

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

It is not that women getting the priesthood diminishes the priesthood. I mean if men could give birth would that diminish women giving birth? No. But that is impossible for men to give birth and nothing is going to change that. So it comes down to roles. Call me old fashion. But that is how I see it. I also am willing to change my view upon receiving greater light and knowledge on the matter.

Comparing the biological, scientific and parts missing, which make it impossible for a (biological) male to give birth is of no consequence or even a valid comparison to women and the Priesthood.

Could the restriction be cultural - as some now claim - the Priesthood limitation for blacks was? It could be. Could it be that God isn't ready to announce a change because He realizes many males in the Church are not ready to accept female Priesthood holders? It could be.

Is there significant historical/cultural basis that could support the argument that females are barred from the Priesthood due to culture? I think there is, just look at the history of how women have been treated by society and in major religions.

Edited June 18, 2014 by frank_jessop

[juliann]

So then... perhaps this originated with BY like the Priesthood ban for blacks?

I believe Joseph Fielding Smith put an end to women participating in blessings (just relying on fuzzy memory). Before that they were encouraged to stand in with husbands, so it would seem to put women in no different position than men laying on hands, but only one using oil.  Now that I think about it, the recent emphasis on women "sharing" priesthood of their husband should make this discarded practice acceptable and logical.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So then... perhaps this originated with BY like the Priesthood ban for blacks?

Jonathan Stapley and Kristine Wright have a very good article available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754069

 

Changes to policy regarding female ritual healings and anointings began at the beginning of the 20th century. By the 1950's to 1960's they had all but ceased. 

 

The last official word on the matter is summarized as follows:

 

The last general instruction on female participation in healing rituals was also an instruction on collaborative healing and was delivered by Joseph Fielding Smith, then president of the Quorum of the Twelve, in 1955. In response to a question in his regular “Answers to Gospel Questions” column in the Improvement Era, Smith quoted his father, Joseph F. Smith, as saying that it was “no uncommon thing” for a man and women to join their faith in administering to their children together. He also quoted Joseph Smith’s 1842 revelation on female healing from his popular Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.[251] Joseph Fielding Smith’s parents regularly administered healing rituals together. Aware of this, and of his father’s documented support of female healing as Church President, he had to negotiate between his Church’s increasingly formalized liturgy and the reality of his personal

experience in his family of origin. Perhaps surprisingly, Smith’s affirmation of female ritual healing is still in print and available in a

recent edition at popular Church-owned book sellers as Answers to Gospel Questions.[252] When Bruce R. McConkie silently edited Smith’s

teachings for inclusion in Doctrines of Salvation, however, it is clear that the tension had been resolved in favor of the formalized liturgy and

priesthood primacy.[253]

 

Also related is this story from Edward Kimball (son of Pres. Spencer W. Kimball)

 

Dad had just been given some codeine for headache; he had not

saidmuch according to the nurse, but he had asked for a blessing. . . .

Pres. Benson was taking a treatment at the Deseret Gym and could not

come right away, so the security man had called Elders McConkie and

Hanks; Mother was glad. Elder Hanks anointed Dad and Elder Mc-

Conkie sealed the anointing as I joined them. At Elder McConkie’s suggestion

Mother also placed her hands on Dad’s head. That was unusual;

it seemed right to me, but I would not have felt free to suggest it on my

own because of an ingrained sense that the ordinance is a priesthood

ordinance (though I recalled Joseph Smith’s talking of mothers blessing

their children). After the administration Mother wept almost uncontrollably

for some minutes, gradually calming down

ETA: I find this loss particularly sad and look forward to a day when it's practice is reinstated.

Edited June 18, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

i'll ignore all the personal attacks and insinuations as to my motives im getting right now and ill quote.

"We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel."- Content removed -

So i ask again these sisters standing in these boths "officating" in the place of God for these other sisters either have the Priesthood or they dont. Its as simple as that.

1) if they dont, then the gospel principles manual needs a revision and some exception handling put inplace.

2) but if they do, then all the flak im getting right now for simply daring to ask a question and try and make other posters be consistant in their argumentation is uncalled for.

 

No Temple talk. If you'd like, you can read the rules again.

~ Mods

But the personal attacks and insinuations were the best part.

As to the Gospel Principles manual of course it is wrong. It is basic. It speaks in generalities. In one portion it speaks about how all will die. Well, technically that is wrong. Some are translated and some twinkle resurrected. Still the general case is correct and putting in all the exceptions in would only confuse the target audience.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Setting aside that I think comparing a short lived and painful biological process to priesthood is part of the problem, women do not create tortured rationales to explain why men shouldn't share in that day's blessing. I'm quite sure all of us would be very glad to share it. I'm also quite sure that men would refuse it. So this isn't an effective analogy. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, which is women and priesthood. So when that topic is diverted into something else, it will be perceived as evasive.

What a sec. The issue is that what women can do vs what men can do. It very much is the same thing here. And though child bearing is painful, the point is that you experience a certain bond with your kids that your husband never will. That is what I am talking about. Not every thing is equal all the time. I am sorry you think these 2 things are not related. I see them as very much related in terms of specific roles. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram