Vigils For Sister Kelly Tonight.

[ERayR]

Agreed. It seems to me that people were either sleeping while attending the temple, or failed to make all the connections presented. Perhaps if their husband had explained better? Or maybe their husbands were sleeping too (Ill admit Ive dozed off a couple times.) Maybe these are single sisters who didnt have a husband to explain?  Perhaps they didn't listen in early morning Seminary?  Maybe they never went to Seminary?

 

In the OT Aaronic Temple Priests wore what is known as an Ephod, a uniform that set them appart and showed their rank in the Priesthood. We read about  the ephod yesterday in Gospel Doctrine class where the Priest  hid Goliaths sword behind it so people wouldn't find it  because Israelites reverenced the Holy nature of the clothing and wouldn't go near. (He gave Goliaths sword back to David when David fled King Saul and needed a weapon to defend himself), Mormon men and women wear the exact same modern day equivalent of the Aaronic High Priest Ephod.  If women don't hold the priesthood why does her Rank Patch state otherwise?

.

With all the people joining in with the OW it appears that doctrinal illiteracy is pretty rampant in the church.

 

Both men and women receive the same tokens.  Men receiving from men, women receiving from women.

[Zakuska]

OK, since several of you have successfully nitpicked one of my sentences, I'll remove it.  How do you feel about the rest of my statement?

 

Honestly, from what I have read in the Joseph Smith Papers, I think that what is needed, rather than an Ordain Women movement is a Relief Society Restoration movement.  Joseph Smith originally set up the Relief Society to be a priesthood organization for the women of the Church.  Rather than being an auxiliary to the Priesthood as it is today, the RS needs to have equal standing with the Priesthood.  Offices in the RS could remain the same.  They just no longer have to answer to a Priesthood authority.  Women would be allowed to give blessings to the sick and also bless babies as they did in the original Church as organized by Joseph Smith.  As far as the missionary program is concerned, sister missionaries would be allowed to hold offices such as District Leaders, Zone Leaders, AP's, etc.

 

AMEN to that! How about Sisters baptizing their own Investigators?  We men seem to have stolen a lot from them in that reguard.   We've taken their ability to Anoint with oil and heal too.  All be it women naturally heal with chicken soup, love and nurture plus making sure you take your meds when you are supposed to, like Ancient healers did.  Perhaps that can be overlooked because its really all a bumbling man can do toward healing, anointing with oil and pronouncing a prayer. Women do all the heavy lifting when some one in the family gets sick anyways.

 

 

Both men and women receive the same tokens.  Men receiving from men, women receiving from women.

Yes I know. And they both wear the exact same rank patch, as well as the same clothing outside the temple.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Zakuska

[ksfisher]

Of course there would still be similar checks and balances in place. 

 

All I am saying is that the women in the Church would have equal input in that process.

 

Just because there are details that would need to be worked out doesn't mean that my idea couldn't work or should be easily dismissed for not "thinking it through".

 

So would the ward primary be a completely independent organization?  Currently there are no organizations in the church that do not operate under priesthood leadership, the priesthood whose ultimate source is the Savior.  You propose to remove any organization whose members are women from this chain of leadership.  That would effectively set up another church within the church.  If the primary president (or YW or RS) was not under the direction of the bishop who would call and release them?

 

Like I said, I really don't think you've thought this through very well at all.

 

edit:  I see much of this was addressed as I was typing. 

Edited June 23, 2014 by ksfisher

[ERayR]

OK, since several of you have successfully nitpicked one of my sentences, I'll remove it.  How do you feel about the rest of my statement?

 

Honestly, from what I have read in the Joseph Smith Papers, I think that what is needed, rather than an Ordain Women movement is a Relief Society Restoration movement.  Joseph Smith originally set up the Relief Society to be a priesthood organization for the women of the Church.  Rather than being an auxiliary to the Priesthood as it is today, the RS needs to have equal standing with the Priesthood.  Offices in the RS could remain the same.  They just no longer have to answer to a Priesthood authority.  Women would be allowed to give blessings to the sick and also bless babies as they did in the original Church as organized by Joseph Smith.  As far as the missionary program is concerned, sister missionaries would be allowed to hold offices such as District Leaders, Zone Leaders, AP's, etc.

 

Your revision didn't help much.  All members , male and female, must answer to priesthood authority.  You must recognize there is but one priesthood and all offices are appendages to that priesthood, Elders, High Priests, Deacons, Teachers,Priests, Relief Society.  Ok a little education as to what this means might be in order but I honestly believe the presiding brethren are trying to work this out.

 

Edit:  Reread your revised post and apologize for misreading the revision.  I can agree with it.  I really think that , in practice, it is that way.  In the wards I have been in anyway.  We just don't verbalize it.  In the wards that I know of the Relief Society president is an integral part of the Priesthood Executive Committee.

Edited June 23, 2014 by ERayR

[why me]

I'm a real Mormon woman too and I see a lot of woman bashing in this thread. I also have a desire for there to be gender parity in the church, and I'm hoping that there will be an inspired response to the fact that there is a sense that we *believe* women are equal (or equally valuable), but our policies and practices say that they aren't. I don't know if that means ordination or something else, but the problem is real.

I haven't seen any bashing on this thread. But I have seen intense disagreement. And there is a difference between the two. The problem with an inspired response is that it always depends on the response. If a person does not agree with the response the response is not inspired. For example, by writing what you did about it, It can take this kind of reasoning. I have never heard the church claim that women are not equally as valuable as men. Just the opposite. But it has been very clear of the roles that both women and men play. I have on this thread shown that human made laws for equality have not worked. In fact, they have failed miserably in the countries that are looked upon as the most equal. Women have become more violent, experienced more violence in sweden, denmark and finland, are drinking alcohol more causing addiction etc. Such is the outcome of human made equality laws and their affects on women. Personally, I would prefer what god considers equality but the members have to accept his laws and actions in this regard when it comes to his church.

 

Lets look at this way: lets say that Kate receives no discipline. What this would mean for OW and other members of the church (IMO) is that OW is an organization that has the church's blessing. So, OW can conduct their on site missionary discussions, proclaim that women must have the priesthood, have talks in sacrament meeting about such a topic and actively recruit for their organization in the church. And since she has received no discipline, OW can go to temple Square and continue their protests. Frankly, I would find this all very interesting if it came to pass: no discipline. It seems to me that OW has already caused disharmony in the church and also contention. I see this on the internet, even on boards that are pro- church. Amazingly, active members are disagreeing with other active members as to whether the leaders are inspired. So, not only does the lds church have exmembers claiming that the leaders are not inspired but also active members of the church. And not to mention the critics of the church who have made such a claim in the past.

 

I find it all very interesting just where all this will lead. To see active members now claiming that the church leaders have not been inspired when it comes to women's issues in the church is quite a change.

Edited June 23, 2014 by why me

[escott3564]

The priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God.  I don't believe trying to place women beside that authority and power and having them no longer be under it, is the answer.

 

Sometimes i think these conversations get to the point where we start advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater without realizing it.  

 

The priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God.  I don't believe trying to place women beside that authority and power and having them no longer be under it, is the answer.

 

Sometimes i think these conversations get to the point where we start advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater without realizing it.  

I don't really see how this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The Priesthood is something that was given to both men and women.  It is simply utilized in different ways.  We learn this in the temple.  All this type of Relief Society restoration would be doing is to restore the RS to its rightful place where it was when Joseph Smith originally organized it.  In the temple, the female temple workers already experience this type of equality.  I am simply talking about expanding it to the RS and the missionary organization.

[bluebell]

I don't really see how this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The Priesthood is something that was given to both men and women.  It is simply utilized in different ways.  We learn this in the temple.  All this type of Relief Society restoration would be doing is to restore the RS to its rightful place where it was when Joseph Smith originally organized it.  In the temple, the female temple workers already experience this type of equality.  I am simply talking about expanding it to the RS and the missionary organization.

 

You don't see how suggesting that women leaders no longer be 'under' the prophet of the church is throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

 

Also, i don't believe that the RS when JS organized it ever functioned outside of his leadership, did it?  

[bluebell]

I don't really see how this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The Priesthood is something that was given to both men and women.  It is simply utilized in different ways.  We learn this in the temple.  All this type of Relief Society restoration would be doing is to restore the RS to its rightful place where it was when Joseph Smith originally organized it.  In the temple, the female temple workers already experience this type of equality.  I am simply talking about expanding it to the RS and the missionary organization.

Also, in the temple, the female temple workers are completely and fully under the authority of the Temple president who is male.

[escott3564]

Your revision didn't help much.  All members , male and female, must answer to priesthood authority.  You must recognize there is but one priesthood and all offices are appendages to that priesthood, Elders, High Priests, Deacons, Teachers,Priests, Relief Society.  Ok a little education as to what this means might be in order but I honestly believe the presiding brethren are trying to work this out.

 

Education regarding the RS being included in that appendage is what I am proposing.  And, as I stated, I think that the Church is currently already starting to lean in that direction.  I don't think that you and I are all that far apart in our thinking.  We might simply be talking past each other.

[ksfisher]

I believe that there is no question that increasing the involvement of women in the church is both right and necessary.  In my opinion removing women from the direction of the priesthood, which is ultimately derived from the Savior himself, would be a step in the wrong direction.  All leaders in the church, both men and women, strive to be the Savior's faithful disciples.  All true disciples gladly submit their will to His.  All look for guidance and direction from the Lord's servants in fulfilling our callings.  We all council together to take advantage of our strengths and be buoyed up in our weaknesses.  We strive not for independence from each other, but for interdependence.

[escott3564]

You don't see how suggesting that women leaders no longer be 'under' the prophet of the church is throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

 

Also, i don't believe that the RS when JS organized it ever functioned outside of his leadership, did it?  

 

I never said that the women leaders were not under the prophet of the Church.  Where did I say that?  What I am suggesting is that the RS is a separate yet equal organization for women.

[ERayR]

Education regarding the RS being included in that appendage is what I am proposing.  And, as I stated, I think that the Church is currently already starting to lean in that direction.  I don't think that you and I are all that far apart in our thinking.  We might simply be talking past each other.

 

 

See my edited post #104 above.

[escott3564]

I believe that there is no question that increasing the involvement of women in the church is both right and necessary.  In my opinion removing women from the direction of the priesthood, which is ultimately derived from the Savior himself, would be a step in the wrong direction.  All leaders in the church, both men and women, strive to be the Savior's faithful disciples.  All true disciples gladly submit their will to His.  All look for guidance and direction from the Lord's servants in fulfilling our callings.  We all council together to take advantage of our strengths and be buoyed up in our weaknesses.  We strive not for independence from each other, but for interdependence.

 

Yes!  And interdependence is exactly all I am advocating for.  As I said, I think that the Church is moving in this direction.

[ERayR]

I never said that the women leaders were not under the prophet of the Church.  Where did I say that?  What I am suggesting is that the RS is a separate yet equal organization for women.

 

I will re post my edit to a previous post.

Edit:  Reread your revised post and apologize for misreading the revision.  I can agree with it.  I really think that , in practice, it is that way.  In the wards I have been in anyway.  We just don't verbalize it.  In the wards that I know of the Relief Society president is an integral part of the Priesthood Executive Committee.

 

escott:  Yes!  And interdependence is exactly all I am advocating for.  As I said, I think that the Church is moving in this direction.

 

In my part of the vineyard it is there. In the bishopric, just recently released having served their term, the Relief Society president served very much as a 3rd counselor to our bishop.  Remember all of the priesthood quorums do not get to perform all the ordinances.

Edited June 23, 2014 by ERayR

[ksfisher]

I never said that the women leaders were not under the prophet of the Church.  Where did I say that?  What I am suggesting is that the RS is a separate yet equal organization for women.

 

But, if the RS president were not under the bishop, she would be removed from the chain that leads up to the president of the church.  The president is the ultimate priesthood authority on this earth.  Being outside of that sort of puts one outside of the church.

[watermelongirl]

I can assure you that in our ward the sisters have equal input in the process. 

I find the discussion about the callings really interesting, but as counterpoint to this argument I can assure you that in our ward, the sisters voice is so minimized as to be nearly nonexistent. We've had counselors chosen for us, calling after calling denied until we have to acquiesce to whoever the bishop wants in the calling. This is not how it is supposed to work, and yet it is.

[watermelongirl]

I find it all very interesting just where all this will lead. To see active members now claiming that the church leaders have not been inspired when it comes to women's issues in the church is quite a change.

I would say that the restoration is not over yet. Something is missing that will bring our doctrine of equality, our words and our actions into harmony. I think we're short of that right now. That does not mean that the leaders of the church have been uninspired. There could be many reasons that things haven't yet sorted themselves out.

[ERayR]

I find the discussion about the callings really interesting, but as counterpoint to this argument I can assure you that in our ward, the sisters voice is so minimized as to be nearly nonexistent. We've had counselors chosen for us, calling after calling denied until we have to acquiesce to whoever the bishop wants in the calling. This is not how it is supposed to work, and yet it is.

 

It is they bishops responsibility to staff the entire ward.  I can assure you it is not only the relief society that gets turned down.  Elders quorum and high priests groups must clear their requests also.

[watermelongirl]

It is they bishops responsibility to staff the entire ward.  I can assure you it is not only the relief society that gets turned down.  Elders quorum and high priests groups must clear their requests also.

So in any case in which a woman receives inspiration for a calling and the bishop wants to "staff" another auxiliary, it is okay for his desires/inspiration to trump hers? That might be considered consistent with the handbook, but it is a form of inequality. I've seen it not only in RS, but Primary as well. We tell sisters to seek for inspiration and then they get it and are told that they were wrong. It's a system that serves to undermine the faith of sisters involved. We can do better.

[busybee]

I'm a real Mormon woman too and I see a lot of woman bashing in this thread. I also have a desire for there to be gender parity in the church, and I'm hoping that there will be an inspired response to the fact that there is a sense that we *believe* women are equal (or equally valuable), but our policies and practices say that they aren't. I don't know if that means ordination or something else, but the problem is real.

Perhaps it is a 'cultural' anomaly that has these women feeling 'unequal', rather that a 'Church' anomaly.

 

I live outside the US and have never felt that I was disadvantaged by the practices and policies of the Church. Where I was raised women were always treated with respect and their opinions (especially in the home) were valued, and usually influenced greatly what happened in the home, even among Church members. This is why I question whether this may be a US phenomenon rather than a worldwide problem. It would be interesting to see how many of those who support the OW movement are outside of the US. I think we will probably find that there are very few, if any.

 

Women who feel that they are 'less' because they don't hold the priesthood will likely feel 'less' because of something else once they got their way and were ordained to the priesthood.

That is not going to fix their view of how they see themselves in relation to others.

This imagined inequality they are feeling is more about them than it is about the Church. 

 

No statement from the Church or change in doctrine, which is what they are demanding, is going to change that.

[USU78]

Perhaps it is a 'cultural' anomaly that has these women feeling 'unequal', rather that a 'Church' anomaly.

 

And you, being better educated and enlightened, are the one to show the ignorant and benighted how bad off they are?

[bluebell]

I never said that the women leaders were not under the prophet of the Church.  Where did I say that?  What I am suggesting is that the RS is a separate yet equal organization for women.

 

You said of your ideal situation women leaders in the church- "They just no longer have to answer to a Priesthood authority." 

 

There is no way to separate RS from the Priesthood without also separating them from the prophet.

[bluebell]

I find the discussion about the callings really interesting, but as counterpoint to this argument I can assure you that in our ward, the sisters voice is so minimized as to be nearly nonexistent. We've had counselors chosen for us, calling after calling denied until we have to acquiesce to whoever the bishop wants in the calling. This is not how it is supposed to work, and yet it is.

 

No it's not how it's supposed to work, and it's not how it works in most wards.  The bishop always has the final say of course.  He knows things about people that others aren't aware of and is in the position to ultimately say who it is appropriate to serve in a calling, but he should not have the only say.

 

This is a problem with your bishop and how he is personally doing things.  That's a hard situation to be in, and probably one that the men in your ward are struggling with as well.  

[bluebell]

I would say that the restoration is not over yet. Something is missing that will bring our doctrine of equality, our words and our actions into harmony. I think we're short of that right now. That does not mean that the leaders of the church have been uninspired. There could be many reasons that things haven't yet sorted themselves out.

 

I agree.

[busybee]

I can assure you that in our ward the sisters have equal input in the process. 

 

Of course there would still be similar checks and balances in place. 

 

All I am saying is that the women in the Church would have equal input in that process.

 

Just because there are details that would need to be worked out doesn't mean that my idea couldn't work or should be easily dismissed for not "thinking it through".

Having served on RS, Primary and YW presidencies (both as a councillor and as president), I have always been the one, after discussion with my councillors, to put forward names to the Bishop/Branch Pres of people that we would like him to call to fulfill callings in the auxillaries. That's how it's supposed to work.

The Bishop would then approve and issue the callings.

You make it seems as if the sisters in these Presidencies have no input.

Someone has to be in charge. of the 'checks and balances' as you put it.

I'm beginning to wonder if I belong to the same church as some of you