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

[Teancum]

Authority isn't ours to give.

I have ordained a few persons to priesthood offices as well as conferred both priesthood to men.

[Tiki]

Where has God ever GRANTED priesthood ordination to women?

Oh, maybe some got that notion from an article about Asherah that someone wrote.

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh, maybe some got that notion from an article about Asherah that someone wrote.

 

I've read quite a bit on Asherah, but I'm not familiar with an article about Asherah that advocates the ordination of women.  Got a reference?

[Daniel Peterson]

Acceptance of a faith claim does not make it correct. 

 

Obviously.

 

But not obviously relevant to my point.

 

 

Scripture only evangelicals reject the Book of Mormon on their own faith claims and you reject their position based on yours.

 

 

That's not exactly true.

[MorningStar]

Take away religion and men and women are different, just not in artificially prescribed ways.

But are we equal without religion?  Is it equal that a woman has to endure periods, pregnancy, childbirth, bladder weakness, breastfeeding problems (cracking, bleeding, infections, etc.) underwire bras (curse them!), and then have to sustain a child's life who sleeps maybe two hours at a time when she needs sleep more than she has ever needed it in her life?  Not to mention the damage to her body and feeling like she has to put her life on hold while caring for the baby.  Is that equal?  Is that fair that God made things that way?  That we don't take turns going through such a difficult experience?  It's a huge difference.  Does it make men and women unequal though? 

 

So I think it's kind of funny to listen to these women who are so upset that they don't have the priesthood and that makes us unequal to men?  I remember when I was a new mom, I thought it was a cruel joke that I was so exhausted and couldn't get anywhere close to the sleep I needed, yet was expected to function, bring the baby in for a check-up three days after giving birth, and while still in awful pain from the damage to my body having a doctor ask me, "So ....... What do you want to use for birth control?"  "Are you kidding me?!  That is the last thing on my mind!" I told him.  I could hardly have a meal or take a shower because my baby slept so little.  I bawled because I felt like I would never feel normal again and would be in pain forever.  Thankfully, my husband was wonderful and was seriously excited to change all of our son's diapers the first week of his life.    He was also so happy to see me and our son bond - thought it was the coolest thing in the world.  I feel the same when he blesses our babies, gives the kids their yearly back to school blessings, baptizes them, etc. 

[ERayR]

Not if the "legal spouse" is a legal fiction, i.e. "Same sex marriage."

This is definitive, non-controversial LDS doctrine. Those who reject it -- as everyone is perfectly free to do -- are properly described as "non-believers."

And, while we are on the subject of proper descriptions: views such as you have articulated here are not, in any meaningful sense, "progressive." Decadence is not progress.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I have heard it said:  Today's progressive is yesterdays sinner.  (tinkles little bell and ducks head)  I just thought it would be nice.

[MorningStar]

Not if the "legal spouse" is a legal fiction, i.e. "Same sex marriage."

This is definitive, non-controversial LDS doctrine. Those who reject it -- as everyone is perfectly free to do -- are properly described as "non-believers."

And, while we are on the subject of proper descriptions: views such as you have articulated here are not, in any meaningful sense, "progressive." Decadence is not progress.

Regards,

Pahoran

No, Pahoran!  No SSM talk!  I'm begging you!  We're so close to 100 pages! 

 

*waits for someone to ruin thread with politics* 

[JLHPROF]

I have ordained a few persons to priesthood offices as well as conferred both priesthood to men.

 

Really.  So instead of giving the priesthood of Aaron or the Priesthood of Melchezidek you gave your own priesthood.

A wise man once reminded me that every ordinance we perform is done in the name of Jesus Christ and by authority of the Priesthood after the order of the Son of God.  It's not our doing.  Just playing the middle man.

 

And if God wants me to give his authority to a woman then God is going to have to tell me to.  Something along the lines of:

"And now, verily I say unto you, my servant Newel K. Whitney is the man who shall be appointed and ordained unto this power. This is the will of the Lord your God, your Redeemer. Even so. Amen." D&C 72:8

[Kenngo1969]

I think I quoted the wrong BOM passage. I meant to quote the one about wickedness never was happiness.

 

Living true doctrines leads to happiness - I believe that. But gays who try to live by church standards do not experience happiness as a result. Rather the opposite. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

Methinks thou paintest with too broad a brush, there, Friend.

[halconero]

Show me where God denied priesthood for women.

They aren't. They are prescribed roles though, as are adult men, young boys and teenagers.

Priesthood isnt just restricted by sex on both sides. A man can't take the authority to become a monarch in Gods kingdom from a woman no more than she can take the authority to baptize.

[Duncan]

You said it is all up to God, I asked you to show me where God denied the priesthood to women.

Sort of like that other priesthood restriction which we could find no direct command for its implementation.

See this link for arguments supporting women having the priesthood:

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

 

I wasn't talking about God denying Priesthood to women-I was talking about mankind being subject to God and submitting our wills to his, we shouldn't force our will on him and expect good things to happen. Why God doesn't give priesthood to women I have no idea

[Duncan]

If you were to have asked in, say, 1949, if it was the authoritative position of the church that choices in the premortal existence affected whether you were born black or not, you'd have to say "yes." That position, staked out by the First Presidency, was explicitly rejected in the church's recent essay. So, as I said, it seems that authoritative positions are not necessarily correct.

 

I think the 1969 First Presidency Statement is better and tempered the 1949 one and what is more it had one of the members of the 1949 First Presidency!

 

 “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.” Pres. McKay

[Tacenda]

CFR that for not born that way. See two can play his game. isn't it fun?

huh!

[sethpayne]

Where has God ever GRANTED priesthood ordination to women?

 

This raises an interesting question.  Ordination is absolutely not required to exercise priesthood or prophetic authority.  Look at Paul.  He was an unordained Apostle for what, 3 years, before meeting Peter and the Jerusalem gang?

[Mystery Meat]

But are we equal without religion?  Is it equal that a woman has to endure periods, pregnancy, childbirth, bladder weakness, breastfeeding problems (cracking, bleeding, infections, etc.) underwire bras (curse them!), and then have to sustain a child's life who sleeps maybe two hours at a time when she needs sleep more than she has ever needed it in her life?  Not to mention the damage to her body and feeling like she has to put her life on hold while caring for the baby.  Is that equal?  Is that fair that God made things that way?  That we don't take turns going through such a difficult experience?  It's a huge difference.  Does it make men and women unequal though? 

 

So I think it's kind of funny to listen to these women who are so upset that they don't have the priesthood and that makes us unequal to men?  I remember when I was a new mom, I thought it was a cruel joke that I was so exhausted and couldn't get anywhere close to the sleep I needed, yet was expected to function, bring the baby in for a check-up three days after giving birth, and while still in awful pain from the damage to my body having a doctor ask me, "So ....... What do you want to use for birth control?"  "Are you kidding me?!  That is the last thing on my mind!" I told him.  I could hardly have a meal or take a shower because my baby slept so little.  I bawled because I felt like I would never feel normal again and would be in pain forever.  Thankfully, my husband was wonderful and was seriously excited to change all of our son's diapers the first week of his life.    He was also so happy to see me and our son bond - thought it was the coolest thing in the world.  I feel the same when he blesses our babies, gives the kids their yearly back to school blessings, baptizes them, etc. 

 

This is a remarkable post. I have a mom, sisters, and sisters-in-law. As a single man it is nearly impossible to comprehend what mom's go through. I am a little overwhelmed by this post. It makes me admire you ladies a bit more, yet not nearly as much as I should. 

[mfbukowski]

I do not dismiss inspiration as invalid, but it CAN be less reliable as direct communication.  Why is that so hard to accept?  It really rubs people the wrong way but it's born out in scripture and history.

How could you possibly know that?  Did you receive a message about where your keys were, and the direct communication was correct and the inspiration was not?

[mfbukowski]

When women tease each other by insulting each other, as men do with "yo mama" jokes, I will know that gender roles are dead.

 

When I find myself attracted to a woman because she is rich and powerful, I will know that gender roles are dead.

 

When there are as many women's shoe stores as there are men's shoe stores, I will know that gender roles are dead..

 

When the men and women's clothing departments in stores are the same size, I will know that gender roles are dead.

 

When a guy walks into the room, and I check out how he is dressed, and if his shoes and socks match his jacket, I will know that gender roles are dead.

 

When I am offended because my wife wants to watch tv and doesn't want to hear my feelings about every detail of what my day was like, I will know that gender roles are dead.

 

When advertisers start selling makeup on the Super Bowl, I will know that gender roles are dead.

 

When I like romance movies, and my wife has to drag me to an action flick, I will know that gender roles are dead.

[mfbukowski]

Deleted by mod.

 

TO ALL:  After repeated requests to stop discussing temple practice and SSM, posts are now being removed. The thread is too fast moving to take time to respond to each off-topic post.  

[Calm]

Can you baptize your child?

That you (and others who do the sme thing) rate the lack of potential ability to baptise as dooming someone to second class status only indicates how you respect others and what status is important to you.

For those of us who do not use our ability to perform certain things to measure our value to a community, telling us we are second class is rather insulting actually.

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng#watch=video

 

This, I think, is apropos of this discussion.  Perhaps, especially, these bits:

 

The proud cannot accept the authority of God giving direction to their lives. (See Hel. 12:6.) They pit their perceptions of truth against God’s great knowledge, their abilities versus God’s priesthood power, their accomplishments against His mighty works.

 

 

Disobedience is essentially a prideful power struggle against someone in authority over us. It can be a parent, a priesthood leader, a teacher, or ultimately God. A proud person hates the fact that someone is above him. He thinks this lowers his position.

 

Edited June 21, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng#watch=video

 

This, I think, is apropos of this discussion.  

Funny.  I'd swear (if I were a swearin' man! ) that I can remember President Benson delivering this talk personally rather than having it read.  

[Teancum]

That you (and others who do the sme thing) rate the lack of potential ability to baptise as dooming someone to second class status only indicates how you respect others and what status is important to you.

For those of us who do not use our ability to perform certain things to measure our value to a community, telling us we are second class is rather insulting actually.

As your making an assumption based on one post that state is somehow my prime motive behind my comment is status is insulting to me.

To clarify it for you, it has nothing to do with status and everything to do wit total participation.

Understand the difference?

I am happy though that you imply in your second second sentence above that because you see things differently that you are somehow above the fray and better than others.

[Calm]

You have misunderstood my post. "status" has more than one meaning, I am using state of being and not "level of fame, etc" unless it is preceded by " class".

I am not saying class status (as in how the world views someone as valuable or not) is important to you, even it appears you see it as important enough to discuss and that there is something to be gained by using such labels in this context. I can't tell why you chose to do so from what you wrote. It may or may not be because you are a class conscious person, it is irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is that you are apparently insisting that thestatus (as in state, not prestige) of being able to perform certain ordinaces must be so important to women that we and others must see ourselves as second class since we are not currently in the category of baptism ordinance performers.

But it is you who have defined class status as being tied to that category of potentially performing certain ordinances and not performing ordinaces and labeled those outside of that category as second class and I see nothing that compels anyone to accept that standard as inherent or having either intrinsic or reasoned value.

I can see some other variables as much better potential candidates for judging class status, but not being able to perform an ordinance where the performance is not salvific for the giver even if it is for the receiver...not seeing valid reasoning here, more of emotional judgment of how nice it is to be able to participate in God's giving such a wonderful covenant to an individual...but men are not part of that covenant and beneficiaries of its blessings anymore than the women who watch. Only our own baptism has that impact for us. Emotionally valuing that experience is fine for weighing what something means to you but for categorising half the membership as second class...I think that should be based on something more substantial...something that might prevent us from being in full fellowship or not have full access to the saving ordinances based solely on our gender.

It is insulting for you to presume to tell an entire category of individuals (LDS women) that we must be second class because we dont meet a standard you impose on us. It would be insulting for me to tell men they were second class because they can't participate in the really cool female initiatories. It is insulting for an American to tell Canadians they have a second class nation because they lack some attribute the individual finds very appealing in his own country, but that Canadians themselves don't value in the same way.

Of what value are those standards? Which should we give greater respect to it than our own standards that see ourselves as valued, first class members of our faith community? And biggest question is why should we alter our standards in such a way? Of what value is that to us?

It is insulting to just tell someone that, without justifying why we must find your definition so definitive that we will change our view as to see ouselves as having less value to our community than we currently view ourselves. To me it is comparable to telling a brunette sheis second class to a blonde or a computer tech that he is second class to a doctor. My response is second class in what meaningful way to me? I see no need to setup arbitrary standards that class how important people are to a community.

"I am happy though that you imply in your second second sentence above that because you see things differently that you are somehow above the fray and better than others. "

Where am I implying I am better than others for seeing things differently? My refusal to allow myself to be called second class based on an (as far as I can tell) artificially imposed standard of class differentiation has nothing to do with any internal sense of superiority, it is based on the logic of the argument not being either substantive or valid..at least not at this point.

"Yes indeed. Even though you are told you are not...you really are a second class citizen in the Kingdom of God.......rather sad isn't it?"

And it is insulting to claim I am too ------- (fill in whatever you think causes me to not be able to see the sad tragedy of my second class life along with a good majority of LDS women) to realise just how second class I am.***** Am I really a second class citizen if I consciously choose to fly second class because I believe the benefits of such limitations will provide me with much better long term value? If my current actions in no way limit my ability to achieve the purpose of the Kingdom of God, full participation in exaltation, oneness with God and all that means, eternal life and a fulness of joy I can start experiencing now, in what meaningful way can someone claim I am second class in God's Kingdom?

*****just as it would be insulting to tell someone they are too brainwashed by the standards of the world to know how blessed they are. People choose what is of value to them individually as well as being part of a community that sets categorisation standards for equality. Not all such standards are created equal, but just being different does not automatically demonstrate they are not appropriate for that particular community even if it might be inappropriate in another context.

Recognising that for many outsiders, our faith community doesn't treat women in the way they would as equals does not require I or our faith community use their standards in our own evaluation of standing.

Edited June 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

As your making an assumption based on one post that state is somehow my prime motive behind my comment is status is insulting to me.

To clarify it for you, it has nothing to do with status and everything to do wit total participation.

Understand the difference?

I am happy though that you imply in your second second sentence above that because you see things differently that you are somehow above the fray and better than others.

Has it ever dawned on you that the very reason why men hold the priesthood and preside in the Church is so that there will be an equality between the sexes? The combined facts that women seem to mature faster than men, have stronger innate senses of responsibility than most men, have greater inborn emotional breadth and strength than most men, have greater capacities to feel empathy and express compassion than most men, have greater wisdom and insight than most men, are more attuned to reality than most men, are more forgiving than most men, have the ability to bear children (the role of men in the biological process of bringing forth life is pitifully minimal by comparison), have a greater ability to lovingly bond with and wisely nurture their children than most men, and are, most assuredly, the crowning glory of God's creation (the woman was the last and greatest of God's progressively noble creations) are reasons enough to give men the priesthood so that they can be motivated and inspired to progress and not devolve into mere drones in the "hive" of humanity!      

Edited June 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[Senator]

I have heard it said:  Today's progressive is yesterdays sinner.  (tinkles little bell and ducks head)  I just thought it would be nice.

 

That was a deep.....deeeeep contribution..