First Presidency Statement On Priesthood, Doubt And Apostasy

[smac97]

The same things we are asking here. Or the question an 8 year old girl asked my daughter in a Sunday School lesson, "Why can't I have the priesthood?"

Ah.  I see your point.  I have not seek Kate Kelly asking that question, though.  I have not seen her ask many questions at all.  She's just been making declarations and issuing ultimatums.

 

Out of curiosity, however, what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic?  How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion ("I don't know why only men are ordained" appears to be the only viable answer).

It seems rather settled that women cannot presently be ordained.  It also seems like we do not have much revealed information as to several legitimate and worthwhile questions on this topic, like "Why are only men ordained to the priesthood" or "Will women ever be ordained to the priesthood?"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2014 by smac97

[CA Steve]

Ah.  I see your point.  I have not seek Kate Kelly asking that question, though.  I have not seen her ask many questions at all.  She's just been making declarations and issuing ultimatums.

 

Out of curiosity, however, what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic?  How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion ("I don't know why only men are ordained" appears to be the only viable answer).

It seems rather settled that women cannot presently be ordained.  It also seems like we do not have much revealed information as to several legitimate and worthwhile questions on this topic, like "Why are only men ordained to the priesthood" or "Will women ever be ordained to the priesthood?"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Exactly.

 

When the opportunity is provided to clarify why, what is given is merely an affirmation of the status quo. We already knew only men were being ordained.

Really this is just a statement about apostasy.

[juliann]

 

Out of curiosity, however, what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic?  How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion ("I don't know why only men are ordained" appears to be the only viable answer).

 

It isn't a matter of being useful, it is a matter of so many women having those questions and being treated like Satan if they raise them. It isn't not having an answer that is the problem, it is in treating the questioner as an apostate or giving worthless answers.  It will be a slow process to stop women in RS from jumping in with that preachy voice we all recognize when we have said something wrong in church, and saying stuff like "I don't want it,  I have enough to do already, you just don't understand the gospel (like I do) and so on. I can see a lot of women and girls shut down and sent screaming to the internet. It will be a learning process.

 

As for the girls in primary, this is the most important time to emphasize their worth (and this is not the time to be telling them to just wait to get pregnant. The first thing that needs to stop is the parading of boys who are going to get this wonderful gift from God in front of the girls who sit there silently watching.

[carbon dioxide]

Ah.  I see your point.  I have not seek Kate Kelly asking that question, though.  I have not seen her ask many questions at all.  She's just been making declarations and issuing ultimatums.

 

Out of curiosity, however, what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic?  How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion ("I don't know why only men are ordained" appears to be the only viable answer).

It seems rather settled that women cannot presently be ordained.  It also seems like we do not have much revealed information as to several legitimate and worthwhile questions on this topic, like "Why are only men ordained to the priesthood" or "Will women ever be ordained to the priesthood?"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Kate Kelly has all the answers. Her individual wisdom and inspiration is greater than the individual and whole wisdom of the First Presidency and the Twelve.  I am surprised that she has not asked them all to resign and replace them all with members of Ordain Women who clearly known the mind of God better than the GA do.  In fact, she might even know the will of God better than God does.

[CA Steve]

Kate Kelly has all the answers. Her individual wisdom and inspiration is greater than the individual and whole wisdom of the First Presidency and the Twelve.  I am surprised that she has not asked them all to resign and replace them all with members of Ordain Women who clearly known the mind of God better than the GA do.  In fact, she might even know the will of God better than God does.

The irony of your post, immediately following Juliann's is quite a sight to see.

[Helen47]

I wonder what Phoebe in the first century would have thought about this ruckus

[JAHS]

In my opinion (probably church leader's opinion as well) women will never be ordained to the priesthood in this life. However, I think church leaders know full well that in a religion that lives and grows on continuing revelation one should never say never about anything.

[smac97]

Exactly.

 

When the opportunity is provided to clarify why, what is given is merely an affirmation of the status quo. We already knew only men were being ordained.

Really this is just a statement about apostasy.

I think it's more than that. Kate Kelly and her compatriots have alleged that they are entitled to the priesthood, but are being deprived of it. I think this establishes the appropriate response to that allegation. We still don't have the "why," but the "what" is, at this point, very clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MorningStar]

It isn't a matter of being useful, it is a matter of so many women having those questions and being treated like Satan if they raise them. It isn't not having an answer that is the problem, it is in treating the questioner as an apostate or giving worthless answers.  It will be a slow process to stop women in RS from jumping in with that preachy voice we all recognize when we have said something wrong in church, and saying stuff like "I don't want it,  I have enough to do already, you just don't understand the gospel (like I do) and so on. I can see a lot of women and girls shut down and sent screaming to the internet. It will be a learning process.

 

As for the girls in primary, this is the most important time to emphasize their worth (and this is not the time to be telling them to just wait to get pregnant. The first thing that needs to stop is the parading of boys who are going to get this wonderful gift from God in front of the girls who sit there silently watching.

The hard thing though is convincing the boys that it's something they need to work hard to be worthy of without telling them how special it is. 

[smac97]

It isn't a matter of being useful, it is a matter of so many women having those questions and being treated like Satan if they raise them.

First, I think "useful" is an apt descriptor for the appropriate response to questions pertaining to female ordination.

Second, I have never once characterized anyone asking questions as "satanic."

Third, your hyperbolic response to a sincere and legitimate question is disconcerting.

It isn't not having an answer that is the problem, it is in treating the questioner as an apostate or giving worthless answers.

I have never treated "questioners" as apostates. That is the second veiled jab in as many sentences. What is going on?

And as far as giving "worthless answers," I agree with you. That is why I asked "what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic" and "How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion."

It will be a slow process to stop women in RS from jumping in with that preachy voice we all recognize when we have said something wrong in church, and saying stuff like "I don't want it,  I have enough to do already, you just don't understand the gospel (like I do) and so on. I can see a lot of women and girls shut down and sent screaming to the internet. It will be a learning process.

Personally, I am not sure "I don't want it" is necessarily an illegitimate response to this issue (see 1 Corinthians, chapter 12 for a scriptural basis), so I am not inclined to "stop women" from having this perspective.

Some women want the priesthood, some don't. I do not think it is the place of the former group to denounce to indoctrinate the latter group, or to "stop" the latter group from having/expressing their opinion/position.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

Shouldn't what the question is asking be more important than how it is asked? I find the juxtaposition of the following statement by Hugh B Brown to today's statement  by the first Presidency and 12 apostles to be very telling.

 

 

"We are grateful in the Church and in this great university that the freedom, dignity and integrity of the individual is basic in Church doctrine as well as in democracy. Here we are free to think and express our opinions. Fear will not stifle thought, as is the case in some areas which have not yet emerged from the dark ages. God himself refuses to trammel man's free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.

I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent - if you are informed.

Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the market place of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, 'From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth - O God of truth deliver us'."

Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958

 

[teddyaware]

In my opinion (probably church leader's opinion as well) women will never be ordained to the priesthood in this life. However, I think church leaders know full well that in a religion that lives and grows on continuing revelation one should never say never about anything.

The answer to the whole women and priesthood question has been answered many times of late on this board, but for some reason when that answer is given it is either not seen, ignored or immediately put out of mind. The answer is that women are one day (for some rare individuals it happens in this life) going to be called forward and ordained queens and priestesses, not priests. When some of those rare individual sisters are ordained in this life, they are actually ordained priestesses without any reference whatsoever to the conferral of either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods. By this it's evident that the priestesshood of the sisters is different in nature from the priesthood which is conferred upon men. Yet this whole controversy will go continue to swirl around and around endlessly, with KK and company barking up the wrong tree and members of this board "having at it," simply because people don't want to focus on the facts in evidence.

Edited June 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[rpn]

Well there is no evidence that Phoebe did anything to "cause a ruckus" and there is no record of her or any other 1st century woman being ordained in priesthood office either.  (There was a woman pope, if you believe some of the stories that catholics now discredit.)

 

16 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

² That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

³ Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

⁴ Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

⁵ Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

⁶ Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

⁷ Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

[Calm]

"Second, I have never once characterized anyone asking questions as "satanic."

Third, your hyperbolic response to a sincere and legitimate question is disconcerting."

I don't think Juliann is suggesting you are doing this, just that it happens and it needs to stop happening

And I think there is plent of evidence that it is happening. I have see it occur in my own RS meeting (not the Satanic part...but we have seen on the board plenty of comments of Kelly being led by Satan and I have seen elsewhere more drastic attacks).

Edited June 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"That is why I asked "what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic" and "How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion.""

I think developing a dialogue that does provide useful answers, new ways of looking things based on scripture, talks, etc. will only occur if questions are first asked. It will take time to develop the language to address it.

For example, we now have conference talks about women and the Priesthood in new ways that we lacked a year ago and yet it really isn't a new teaching but just using language to look at the subject from a different standpoint.

[juliann]

The hard thing though is convincing the boys that it's something they need to work hard to be worthy of without telling them how special it is. 

Of course. The message is not wrong.  It is the teaching method that is a problem.  Boys in primary are asked to stand up to be honored (unless the manual has been changed) with the girls sitting their silent and ignored. My daughter dreaded the ongoing lessons on priesthood because the girls were left out for the most part. Do it another way.  Make it about priesthood, not about not being a girl which is the lesson to the girls.  Elder Holland gave a talk many years ago to parents about the danger of telling one child they have a certain attribute, oh, he is the smart one, etc.  Because as wonderful as that is for the child who is told that, all  it tells the other child is they aren't. (That was done in my family and I grew up thinking I wasn't smart because that was what my older sister was so that talk stuck with me.)

 

That is the missing piece in these discussions...the girls and women. What messages are they receiving? Why aren't we concerned about that? Does it reflect on the possibility that some of the accusations women are ignored or overlooked could have some basis?

 

I have never treated "questioners" as apostates. That is the second veiled jab in as many sentences. What is going on?

 

 

 Smac, I apologize for any wording that could have given that impression it had anything to do with you.  You are a voice of reason.

[juliann]

"That is why I asked "what sort of questions do you think are useful to keep asking on this topic" and "How would you propose to answer the little girl's question without resorting to speculation or personal opinion.""

I think developing a dialogue that does provide useful answers, new ways of looking things based on scripture, talks, etc. will only occur if questions are first asked. It will take time to develop the language to address it.

For example, we now have conference talks about women and the Priesthood in new ways that we lacked a year ago and yet it really isn't a new teaching but just using language to look at the subject from a different standpoint.

FWIW, my daughter replaced the current priesthood lesson for the teenagers with Elder Oaks talk.  She asked her bishop for permission and he told her it was her responsibility to discern what the kids needed.  She was worried about the topic for weeks prior. She was able to break down some of the typical misconceptions about priesthood with that talk...to the amazement of the kids. (And no, I don't remember specifics)  She says the kids in the class usually just sit there and say nothing. The counselor told her that the boys were all over him saying how wonderful that lesson was after class.  So they are hungry for new understanding, too. They are not immune from the same questions and concerns.

[jwhitlock]

Do you really have no awareness that you are saying that the priesthood is irrelevant to these blessings attached to it because anybody can have them just because? Why would you want to do that?  Why diminish the priesthood simply to win a debate?

 

What I'm really aware of is that you readily misinterpret what I post.

 

However, let's turn it around. Do you really have no awareness that you are saying that women can't have these blessings if they don't have the priesthood?  And if so, would you actually like to back up such sentiments with concrete evidence for your viewpoint, for once?

 

I posted elsewhere that it's evident that you aren't willing to engage in productive discussions on this subject.  When you post generalized feminist stuff like this in #20:

 

 Women do not have equal merit in man's eyes...

 

 

and when you misrepresent my comments as badly as you've done on this board, it's pretty clear that your perspective is pretty questionable..

 

Of course, men don't have valid viewpoints anyway, do they. And it's more than evident on this thread that you don't think much of women in the church who don't agree with the nature of problems as you represent them.

 

In any case, I've already addressed what you're doing here. I'll continue to ask valid questions because they need to be asked and it's irrelevant whether they meet with your approval or not.

[Calm]

"Personally I think you as much as responsible for polarizing this issue as anyone"

I don't.

In the few cases where Smac has gone too far, he has altered his approach to a less inflammatory or dismissive approach that I've seen. At least for requests I view as reasonable.

OW is being endlessly talked about everywhere I go on the Internet and Smac is only here so I see him as being both prompt and accurate (I much prefer his approach to most I've seen from either most supporters or detractors), but not a polariser. He cautions people to avoid going to emotional motivations quite often and works at removing such from his own stuff when pointed out. He provides specific details and reasons for his positions allowing hem to be easily challenged if necessary and making it clear why he has drawn such conclusions.

PS: Juliann who is the other author of the blog you cite (thank you) just called Smac a voice of reason, which I agree with.

Edited June 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[carbon dioxide]

It isn't a matter of being useful, it is a matter of so many women having those questions and being treated like Satan if they raise them. It isn't not having an answer that is the problem, it is in treating the questioner as an apostate or giving worthless answers.  It will be a slow process to stop women in RS from jumping in with that preachy voice we all recognize when we have said something wrong in church, and saying stuff like "I don't want it,  I have enough to do already, you just don't understand the gospel (like I do) and so on. I can see a lot of women and girls shut down and sent screaming to the internet. It will be a learning process.

 

As for the girls in primary, this is the most important time to emphasize their worth (and this is not the time to be telling them to just wait to get pregnant. The first thing that needs to stop is the parading of boys who are going to get this wonderful gift from God in front of the girls who sit there silently watching.

I don't see anyone treating anyone as an apostate because they ask questions.  I see those responsible for Ordain Women as apostate because the entire premise what they are doing I will not just say apostate but satanic.  Regardless of the issues Ordain Women are raising, any organization that attempts to demand change through pressure tactics, recruiting members to cause change, ect is not how Christ organized the Church.  It is clear in 3 Nephi 11:28-30 that Christ says that the devil is the author of anything that causes contention and division.  Christ works opposite of contention and division.  Christ says by their fruits ye shall know them.  So the matter is simple to me.  What are the fruits of Ordain Women?  Are they creating unity in the Church and help it progress or are they causing division, contention, strife, ect in the Church.  There is no question in my mind that regardless of the intention of the individuals who set up and run Ordain Women, the organization and what it is doing is of the devil based on its fruits.  For that every LDS member needs to renounce Ordain Women.  If women are ever ordained, it will come by a method that Christ would author.  Not one that Satan would author.

[juliann]

As more and more people speak out on the issue - either one way or the other - sides develop and well, you get lumped in the extremists on one side just as a LDS woman who would accept Priesthood or is not opposed to ordination of women according to Gods will, is lumped into with the Kate Kelly group. (Personally I think you as much as responsible for polarizing this issue as anyone)

I agree with OW sucking all the air out of the room so that women who do ask questions are dumped into the same box, Smac is one of those keeping things civil and rational. I may not agree with him all the time, but polarizing does not apply.  And criticizing anyone for opening threads when this topic is everywhere is unreasonable.

[Calm]

"I don't see anyone treating anyone as an apostate because they ask questions"

It is good that it hasn't happened in your experience. It has happened in others. I've had people call into question my own loyalty to the Church simply because I support other women in asking questions and speculating about changes.

You kind of prove the point by lumping responsible for OW members into your "what they are doing I will not just say apostate but satanic"

Edited June 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

  For that every LDS member needs to renounce Ordain Women.  If women are ever ordained, it will come by a method that Christ would author.  Not one that Satan would author.

It could just as easily said that your viewpoint comes from Satan.  It could be characterized as uncharitable and unChristlike.  We all sin differently.  So it might be better to desist from renouncing people.  Disagreeing works better.

[smac97]

Smac,

I think the issue stems from you approach you have taken concerning women and priesthood, OW and Kate Kelly (and as much as you claim you are neutral or just presenting the facts; you come off as extremely biased).

I have never claimed to be either "neutral" or "just presenting the facts." I have been very critical of Kate Kelly and the OW movement. I have been very open with my criticism and my expressions of my personal opinion about the activities of Kate Kelly and the OW group.

 

You are playing the attorney standing before a jury during closing arguments, using subtle craftiness and emotionally charged language to sway the jury the way you want them to go.

Nonsense. I have been neither "subtle" nor "crafty." I have been very straightforward in expressing my views about the OW group and Kate Kelly.

 

As I have stated before, if it were not for you, most of us wouldn't have clue about Kate Kelly and OW;

(SARCASM)

Right. I control the content of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, NPR, The Guardian, The Religion News Service, The Telegraph, KSL, The Deseret News, The Salt Lake Tribune, and the dozens and dozens of other news outlets which have been reporting about Kate Kelly. And nobody on this board pays any attention to any of these outlets. And but for me, you would all be saying "Kate who?"

(/SARCASM)

And regarding my presenting news items about this topic on this board, I will own up to that. I do not apologize for presenting information to the board. I just don't feel guilty about helping other people become more informed about Kate Kelly and the OW group. I am surprised you take exception to such efforts. Do you want people to be less informed about these folks?

I would like to have a serious discussion, but the absurdity of your accusations against me is piling up. And this topic isn't about me, anyway.

 

you have been Kate Kelly's and OW best publicity machine. And by not having a clue, I mean, we likely would never had discussed OW or Kate Kelly. Nearly all the threads you have started over the last few weeks/months focused entirely on Kate Kelly, OW or both. (Did you read the piece on Fairmormon by Juliann Reynolds and Calmoriah Robinson concerning the dialogue of women and Priesthood? One of two of the disconcerting examples, of what we isn't productive, they used came from this board)

Did this "disconcerting example" come from me? I really doubt it (Juliann, in this very thread, just described me as a "voice of reason," so I doubt she has taken issue with my overall position on this topic).

 

As more and more people speak out on the issue - either one way or the other - sides develop and well, you get lumped in the extremists on one side

Out of curiosity, how would you describe my position on this issue? Do you even know what my position is?

 

just as a LDS woman who would accept Priesthood or is not opposed to ordination of women according to Gods will, is lumped into with the Kate Kelly group. (Personally I think you as much as responsible for polarizing this issue as anyone)

You have exhibited little or no familiarity with what I have said about this topic. Either that, or you are are fundamentally misrepresenting what I have said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2014 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

"The fact that LDS priesthood offices are reserved for men, Kelly said, is 'an accurate reflection of current practice, but it doesn’t say women will never be ordained or anything about women’s roles or connection to the priesthood.' The Mormon officers, she said, 'left that wide open for the future.'"

 

"I move for no man."

"Alright. Let's call it a draw!"

 

Edited June 28, 2014 by Bernard Gui