Vigils For Sister Kelly Tonight.

[jwhitlock]

Why is priesthood office now tied to age where once it wasn't?

Why don't we now have seventy quorums in the wards?

 

It's not tied to age. We've got elders attending the Elder's quorum who are quite old. We also have other elders attending the High Priest's group. There's no hard rule, just an option.

 

There were never Seventy quorums in the ward. They were on the stake level. They still exist as the focus of that quorum has been redefined on the area / general level.

[Calm]

So redefine and have options for quorums when it comes to women...we do believe in continuing revelation after all.

The Church at one time didn't have a Quorum of the Twelve, now it does. God changes the Church structure as it needs it in its growth.

Edited June 23, 2014 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

So redefine and have options for quorums when it comes to women...we do believe in continuing revelation after all.

The Church at one time didn't have a Quorum of the Twelve, now it does. God changes the Church structure as it needs it in its growth.

 

And have priesthood quorums that compete with each other based on gender?

 

Still have the male priesthood quorums do home teaching, but have the female priesthood quorums just minister to women?

 

And again, most importantly, make priesthood ordination optional for women?

 

If you think logically about it, it would simply require a massive redefinition of what priesthood means if we were to treat ordained women in any way differently than we treat ordained men.

 

When a man receives the priesthood he is required to conform to the order of the priesthood. Are we going to have women, optionally ordained, conform to a different order??

 

That makes absolutely no sense when it comes to priesthood. And I suspect that it's not something that anyone demanding the priesthood is really willing to address in detail.

[bluebell]

No problem. Women who wanted no part of Ordain Women would not want or accept priesthood ordination. It is only a relatively small number of female dissidents seeking the priesthood. You might say that 'real' Mormon women are not seeking to steady the ark.

 

This is exactly true.

 

A lot of women who want nothing to do with OW, would accept the priesthood if the prophet declared that God wanted women to be ordained.  Under such circumstances, it might be a sin not to accept it.

[Calm]

If the Lord wants women to have the Priesthood, I believe he is quite capable of providing instruction to make it work in the way he desires. I see no need to answer any revelation with a "sorry, we don't want that one, too complicated to make all those changes to accommodate things, let's just stay with the status quo as it makes so much more sense".

[Teancum]

With all due respect (I say that sincerely), I cannot agree to the statement that "women who wanted no part of Ordain Women would not want or accept priesthood ordination." There are devout and faithful LDS women who sincerely believe that female ordination is within the realm of possibility, and who even yearn for it, but who reject the OW group and their tactics. It is Kate Kelly's tactics and rhetoric that has landed her in front of a disciplinary council, not her desire to hold the priesthood per se.I agree that that the number of women in the Church who are seeking the priesthood is "relatively small," but I reject the suggestion that they are all "female dissidents." Again, there are devout and faithful LDS women who want the priesthood but are not resorting to OW-like tactics and rhetoric in pursuit of it.I also cannot agree with the statement that "'real' Mormon women are not seeking to steady the ark," as this statement is apparently drawing a 1:1 correlation between wanting the priesthood and ark-steadying. There are devout and faithful LDS women who want the priesthood but are not resorting to OW-like tactics and rhetoric in pursuit of it, who are not "steadying the ark."I am open to the possibility of female ordination, but only if we are given revelation about it. Beyond that, I'm fairly ambivalent about the subject (that is, I do not agitate for it or argue against it). I think there are women in the Church who share my position, but then take it a bit further in that they are not only open to the possibility, they hope for it and talk about it prospectively. I do not think that is a problematic position, except to the extent its adherents run the risk of taking it a few steps further into public advocacy, then agitation and protests, etc. (a la Kate Kelly).I admire the women in the Church who self-identify as "feminists," who seek to reconcile some form of that ideology with faithful observance of the LDS faith, and who are attempting such reconciliation but refuse to do so by compromising the doctrines of the Church or rising up in rebellion against it, and instead proceed with faith, humility, and continued devotion to the Church. While I do not share their devotion to this particular topic, such women can certainly be counted as "real" Latter-day Saints.Thanks,-Smac

Hi Smac

You and I often don't agree but this post I think was very well thought out and fair.

I still am not sure how I feel about Kate Kelly. Understanding how the church operates I can see why she is where she is. But it also seems to me that she started out fairly respectful. Her group asked numerous times for face to face meetings to present a request that the LDS leaders be prayerful about the issue. She was ignored. PA sent a few letters and that is it. I wonder if someone at say the level of seventy had met with the group and talked openly about gender issues and even said the leaders do pray about such things if the tide would have turned differently.

I don't know many women who want the priesthood but I know many who would accept it if it were offered.

Also to Bsix, keep in mind Section 84 tells us we (men) at least should seek after the priesthood. I am not sure why you think desiring the priesthood disqualifies someone from it,

[Stone holm]

If the Lord wants women to have the Priesthood, I believe he is quite capable of providing instruction to make it work in the way he desires. I see no need to answer any revelation with a "sorry, we don't want that one, too complicated to make all those changes to accommodate things, let's just stay with the status quo as it makes so much more sense".

I agree. I also think we are deluding ourselves to think that there will not be a change of some type. This is not a question of standards as the SSM situation was, and it is not something that necessarily goes against the order of the cosmos as we know male and female gods exist. My personal view is it is a cultural artifact, that does not mean we can change it without Divine guidance, but it certainly means we need to exercise extreme care in disciplining advocates.

[Teancum]

In their non-negotiable demands to have the priesthood, I don't think that those making those demands have really thought through what having the priesthood means and what changes it would entail.

 

The priesthood is structured in a very specific way, with quorums based on priesthood office. Priesthood holders in the church are organized solely according to the order of the priesthood. They are expected to be ordained to the priesthood starting at age 12 and to accept the responsibilities and the structure of the priesthood as specified in the scriptures.  There are no other organizational structures outside of the priesthood and priesthood responsibility that are defined in the church for priesthood holders.

 

So let's assume that women were given the priesthood. They would be required, then, to function organizationally in the church within the priesthood structure as revealed. This would include:

 

- All girls would be expected to be ordained to the priesthood at age 12, just as boys are. There is no contingency for optional participation within the structure of the church. Men are not considered fully active members of the church if they do not hold the priesthood.

- Girls would be expected to assume all of the responsibilities and requirements of the priesthood, including the responsibility of going on missions. It would no longer be optional for them.

- All women would be members of priesthood quorums, just like the men. Since priesthood quorums are only organized by priesthood office - no other definition of quorums is revealed - those quorums would consist of men and women.

- Since women would now be organized in the church under the revealed priesthood structures, no women-specific organizations would be needed or acceptable. Relief Society would be abolished since it would be redundant. Young Women would be folded into the Young Men priesthood structure, which would probably be renamed. There would be no separate men / women meetings or activities, because priesthood quorums are the defining, unified organization for all who hold the priesthood. Period.

- Visiting teaching would be eliminated. Priesthood outreach in the church is not limited by gender under the revelations, and so there would only be home teaching, and both men and women would be expected to home teach men and women.

- Any women-specific meetings or activities or programs would need to be eliminated since all member activity would fall under the structure of priesthood organization, since by revelation, the exercise of priesthood  cannot be limited in such a manner.

 

In short, if women were to be given the priesthood, it could not be provided as an optional ordination for women, different than the way it is offered for men. Both men and women in the priesthood would be required to be organized and responsible in exactly the same way, with no exceptions. Doing otherwise undermines the scriptural requirement for unity within the priesthood quorums for ALL members of those quorums.

 

The structure of the church would be destroyed. Women's needs could not be met based on their needs; everything would have to be done based on the revealed structure of the priesthood, which makes no provision for members of priesthood quorums to be treated differently based on gender.

 

The majority of LDS women who don't want the priesthood and who generally function comfortably (not that there aren't issues at times, but they accept the structure as generally beneficial) within the current framework would see all of that washed away. They would be required to be in priesthood quorums with priesthood responsibilities the same way men are. They wouldn't be very happy with it.

 

This would conflict with the complementary roles of men and women in the way they interact with each other now. The current system, when applied properly, works very well to meet the needs of both men and women. Having both men and women organized solely in priesthood quorums would make it difficult, if not impossible for the needs of either gender to be properly met.

 

Some have said that female priesthood ordinations could be optional. Such statements indicate a lack of understanding about the revelations governing priesthood structures. Being optional would simply not be an option.

 

It seems clear, at least to me, that the current church organization structure - again, when properly implemented - is most effective in meeting the needs of men and women. Having men only hold the priesthood gives us all greater flexibility in meeting the specific needs both men and women have. It provides a structure in which all can be blessed.

 

Ordaining women to the priesthood would require a wholesale revision of the revelations governing priesthood organization. That is not going to happen. And so the non-negotiable demands for female priesthood ordination is, basically, a non-starter.

This whole post is nonsensical. There could be male and female quorums.

The RS could exist. Indeed JS organize the RS to look like a priesthood quorum and there is historical evidence the indicates he intended for women to have the full power of the priesthood.

Other accommodations that make sense for organizational purposes could be considered.

[Calm]

This sub discussion is making me break out into "I will go, I will do the things the Lord commands, I know the Lord provides a way, he wants me to obey..."

[jwhitlock]

If the Lord wants women to have the Priesthood, I believe he is quite capable of providing instruction to make it work in the way he desires. I see no need to answer any revelation with a "sorry, we don't want that one, too complicated to make all those changes to accommodate things, let's just stay with the status quo as it makes so much more sense".

 

The Lord has already structured it the way He wants. But since some women are demanding the priesthood, the Lord will just have to restructure it from the ground up. We don't have to worry about it otherwise.

 

Because that is exactly what it would take. A wholesale revision to the entire concept of what priesthood means and how it use used and structured.

 

Rather simplistic, in my mind, saying that we don't have to worry about the impact, because the Lord would take care of it.

 

Even if it requires eliminating some fundamental principles of the gospel in the process.

 

No problem. We don't need to think any further about it than that. How priesthood is structured, organized, conferred and used is just policy and can be changed at any time. No doctrine involved.

 

I notice that my specific questions are not being answered. I suspect that's because the answers aren't very pretty and it's easier just to avoid them and say that the Lord will simply take care of it.

[Calm]

" I suspect that's because the answers aren't very pretty and it's easier just to avoid them and say that the Lord will simply take care of it."

And you would be wrong....I just don't think it wise to scatter the Internet with what ifs...

[jwhitlock]

This whole post is nonsensical. There could be male and female quorums.

The RS could exist. Indeed JS organize the RS to look like a priesthood quorum and there is historical evidence the indicates he intended for women to have the full power of the priesthood.

Other accommodations that make sense for organizational purposes could be considered.

 

You're simply being dismissive without really addressing the issues involved.

 

There seems to be a significant lack of understanding about what priesthood really is and how it operates and is structured in the responses that I'm seeing.

 

That you label it as "nonsensical" is totally irrelevant - especially since you can't phrase any kind of cogent response to it.

[jwhitlock]

" I suspect that's because the answers aren't very pretty and it's easier just to avoid them and say that the Lord will simply take care of it."

And you would be wrong....I just don't think it wise to scatter the Internet with what ifs...

 

Given that neither you nor the others dismissing me are able to respond to valid questions about how things would need to be structured if women were ordained to the priesthood tells me that it's inconvenient to consider them because they're uncomfortable.

 

They're valid questions and it's a valid exercise to consider.

[MorningStar]

I'm going to light a candle in honor of her poor bishop. 

[MorningStar]

I believe faithful LDS women would accept the priesthood if we were called to hold it, but I would never demand it.  I want whatever the Lord wants. 

[changed]

I'm going to light a candle in honor of her poor bishop. 

Perhaps we should all write letters too.

 

"Letters of opposition to Kate Kelly and Ordain Women"  ... let's see, who are they sending their letters and emails too? Edited June 23, 2014 by changed

[Teancum]

You're simply being dismissive without really addressing the issues involved.

 

There seems to be a significant lack of understanding about what priesthood really is and how it operates and is structured in the responses that I'm seeing.

 

That you label it as "nonsensical" is totally irrelevant - especially since you can't phrase any kind of cogent response to it.

The church evolved in its structure over a 20 year period. It has continued to change and offer options to a growing church. It could easily do so to accommodate women holding the priesthood. I am sorry if it offends you that I found your post nonsensical but I did and it is really not worth it to me to chase it. This is all theoretical any way.

[jwhitlock]

The church evolved in its structure over a 20 year period. It has continued to change and offer options to a growing church. It could easily do so to accommodate women holding the priesthood. I am sorry if it offends you that I found your post nonsensical but I did and it is really not worth it to me to chase it. This is all theoretical any way.

 

This has nothing to do with "evolution" or any kind of minor changes. It would require a wholesale restructuring of everything - including doctrinal aspects - of the priesthood.

 

It's why "demands" for the priesthood that don't take any of this into account are basically non-starters.

 

BTW, it's fine if you find my post nonsensical. I find your response to be simplistic without any real attempt at understanding.

[Sleeper Cell]

This whole post is nonsensical. There could be male and female quorums.

 

In other words, “separate but equal.”  

[jwhitlock]

In other words, “separate but equal.”  

 

Yep. That always works out well.

[teddyaware]

In the midst of this churning debate, there is one indisputable fact: And that fact is that exalted women who inherit  the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom are going to be anointed priestesses unto God. If someone is ever able to authoritatively and definitively explain what the true nature of this priestesshood is, then this seemingly endless and too often acrimonious debate will go a long way toward being settled. The following quote may begin to shed some possible light on the this very subject:

Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them and are not ordained to offices therein, but they are entitled to all priesthood blessings. Those women who go on to their exaltation, ruling and reigning with husbands who are kings and priests, will themselves be queens and priestesses. They will hold positions of power, authority, and preferment in eternity. (Bruce R. McConkie)

 

Some pertinent questions:

 

1 Is this promised priestesshood precisely one and the same thing as the holy priesthood now held by men?

 

2 In some significant ways, will the authority of the priestesshood be different from the priesthood authority now held by men?

 

3 Will this promised priestesshood confer power and authority on women that will enable them to preside in the highest counsels of the Church?

 

4 Will the women who hold this promised priestesshood compose an organization on a sort of parallel line of authority with the priesthood but not be precisely the same thing?

 

5 Will the promised priestesshood empower women to preside, but only over their own spirit children in the celestial world?

 

The priestesshood promised to women would seem to be a good, wise and even productive choice on which to focus this discussion. But do I expect the participants on this board to focus upon this promised priestesshood  -- something we actually know for certain is going to become a future reality? Or are they going to go back and concentrate only on the endless, unproductive and even destructive debate concerning women being ordained to the same priesthood now held by men? Well of course not!

Edited June 23, 2014 by teddyaware

[jwhitlock]

In the midst churning debate, there is one indisputable fact: And that fact is that exalted women who inherit in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom are going to be anointed to priestesses unto God. If someone is ever able to authoritatively and definitively explain what the true nature of this priestesshood is, then this seemingly endless and too often acrimonious debate will go a long way toward being settled. The following quote may begin to shed some possible light on the this very subject:

Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them and are not ordained to offices therein, but they are entitled to all priesthood blessings. Those women who go on to their exaltation, ruling and reigning with husbands who are kings and priests, will themselves be queens and priestesses. They will hold positions of power, authority, and preferment in eternity. (Bruce R. McConkie)

 

Some pertinent questions:

 

1 Is this promised priestesshood precisely one and the same thing as the holy priesthood now held by men?

 

2 In some significant ways, will the authority of the priestesshood be different from the priesthood authority now held by men?

 

3 Will this promised priestesshood confer power and authority on women that will enable them to preside in the highest counsels of the Church?

 

4 Will the women who hold this promised priestesshood compose an organization on a sort of parallel line of authority with the priesthood but not be precisely the same thing?

 

5 Will the promised priestesshood empower women to preside, but only over their own spirit children in the celestial world?

 

The priestesshood promised to women would seem to be a good, wise and even productive choice on which to focus this discussion. But do I expect the participants on this board to focus upon this promised priestesshood  -- something we actually know for certain is going to become a future reality? Or are they going to go back and concentrate only on the endless, unproductive and even destructive debate concerning women being ordained to the same priesthood now held by men? Well of course not!

 

It doesn't appear to be the same priesthood, since both men and women receive the annointings Elder McConkie is talking about (priests and priestesses) after this life.

[ERayR]

she doesnt claim the right to have it. shes asking the leaders if they will ask god if they can have the right.

 

With the caveat that when they ask the only acceptable answer is yes. 

[MorningStar]

With the caveat that when they ask the only acceptable answer is yes. 

Nailed it!

[ERayR]

In other words, “separate but equal.”

 

I want a men only drinking fountain. :diablo: