First Presidency Statement On Priesthood, Doubt And Apostasy

[smac97]

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.

No worries. I understand what you are saying now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

I'm confused. Where has the church taught that women can't have any of those blessings currently?

 

You just brought something to mind that makes me wonder if this isn't some of the problem.  John Lund talks about research in one of his CDs about how men and women's brains and brain connections work differently.  His example was something like men saying "the woman in the red dress looks nice" and thinking "the woman in the red dress looks nice."  The woman's brain processes that different though.  She doesn't just think, "the woman in the red dress looks nice", but also thinks "Does he like women in red dresses? Would he like me in red dresses? I'm not wearing a red dress - does that mean he doesn't think I look nice?" 

 

This doesn't mean that women always think in the negative or in questions. It just means that a simple statement to men can be full of meaning for women.  When I first heard that I scoffed at the idea, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that I was thinking that way a lot of the time. 

 

So when women hear, "men get blessings from using the priesthood" then there may be a whole lot more going on in our headsur heads.  Now I can look at that, think of all the things and come out with the conclusion "both men and women get blessings when serving others" but it has taken time to train myself.  Other women may not have it so easy, especially if they have men in their lives who have actually stated or shown a belief that they are better than women.  

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck... chances are...  it really IS a duck.

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). 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.

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

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 don't agree. I find this an unfair view of him.

 

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.

 

I had doctrinal questions once.  Asked lots of people about it.  There were times when I was told that I was thinking "too deep" and that it would get me in trouble and was basically told to stop asking.  It really was just basic questions about the atonement.  I was blessed to later be able to ask my stake president who told me it was a good question.  He worked for CES and asked someone else there and they came back with a great answer.  

 

I imagine that there are women who are like that who have asked questions about a woman's place in the church. Women who just want to understand better.  Women who want to use all the gifts Heavenly Father has been given them.  And when they ask they get told the questions are too deep or out of line or especially now, that they are getting close to apostasy.  

 

It happens.  Some me like my husband and my stake president and the CES brother work with you and you can get some great understanding of the gospel through your questions.  Some just shut you down.  

 

Zakuska - I cannot get between the 2 quote boxes above. I've got to figure that out!  So I am answering here.  Something you said about what happens at the temple is not exactly true.  You've said it a number of times on the board - the first time I figured I would let it go, but you've repeated it enough that I felt I should say something.  I am not going to get into it because I don't feel comfortable talking about it outside the temple, even if others do, but I think it makes quite a difference to the conclusion you make from it.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Rain

[Nemesis]

Keep the politics and temple content off the board.

 

Nemesis

[carbon dioxide]

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.

So following the advice of Jesus by looking at the fruits of an organization to know whether it is of Christ or of the devil is an act of being uncharitable and being unChristlike? 

 

3 Nephi 11:28-30 "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

 

If you believe that Ordain Women is doing away with contension and disputations on doctrine, that is fine.  When I look at the fruits or the results of Ordain Women, I can't see any fruit that is good.  Just division, attempts to make the Church look bad because it does not cater to policial correctness or change with society ect. 

 

I am not denouncing the people but the methodology of the organization.   Perhaps the people started Ordain Women did not have evil intentions.  Satan can use unsuspecting people to accomplish his will.  Based on what I see the results of that have been caused by Ordain Women, I can't see why Christ would be the author of it or be pleased with it.

Edited June 29, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

So Kate Kelly is now claiming that the message from the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve exonerates her:
 

But Kelly cheered Saturday’s statement, calling it "monumental" and "an extremely positive step."

"We’ve been asking for a response from church leaders and they responded," Kelly said Saturday.

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 officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said, "left that wide open for the future."

Moreover, they defined apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine," she said. "Given that I have always sustained leaders of church, and Ordain Women doesn’t teach any doctrine — let alone false doctrine — this clearly exonerates me. I am not guilty of either of those charges."

A few thoughts:
 
1. Whether or not the Church's message today "exonerates" Kate Kelly, I find it inappropriate for her to declare such a thing publicly.  But then, I think her (successful) efforts to sensationalize the entire disciplinary process have been very inappropriate, so this most recent state is pretty much par for the course.
 
2. I think Kate Kelly misrepresents the letter when she says that the Brethren define apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine." What they said was: "Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine."

Well, let's see...

• Kate Kelly publicly defied direct written and verbal instructions from Church leaders and trespassed and protested on sacred ground during a sacred convocation. This was specifically referenced in one of the bulleted items in the bishop's letter to Kate Kelly.
• The OW group has been promulgating "Six Discussions" which is extremely critical of "patriarchy."  These discussions are specifically identified in the bishop's letter.
• These discussions include statements that male-only ordination, which is the Church's doctrinal position, as "bollocks" (an Anglo-Saxon word meaning literally "testicles," but used pejoratively as "nonsense" - Thanks for keepin' it classy, Ordain Women!).
• These discussions declare that "God is not the author of" male-only ordination.
• A person is quoted in these discussions as rejecting male only ordination (speaking to the Church): "I'm not buying what you're selling."
• These discussions declare that "(t)he women’s priesthood ordination ban itself is not scriptural."

These are just a few examples I found while quickly skimming through the discussions.  Kate Kelly has also publicly accused her bishop, whom I think qualifies as one of those "faithful leaders" referenced above, of being a liar, cowardly and unchristlike.  She has also compared the disciplinary process against her to rape, her bishop to a rapist, and herself to a rape victim.

 

Whether the activities/statements in the foregoing list (which, I should note, is incomplete) constitute "repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine" is, fortunately, not for me or anyone else on this board to determine.

 

3. I hope Kate Kelly de-escalates.  This matter should not have been made public, and ongoing efforts to keep it public are not helpful, IMO.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 29, 2014 by smac97

[sethpayne]

 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.

 

Well let's not get carried away....

 

Edited June 29, 2014 by sethpayne

[Mystery Meat]

So Kate Kelly is now claiming that the message from the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve exonerates her:

 

A few thoughts:

 

1. Whether or not the Church's message today "exonerates" Kate Kelly, I find it inappropriate for her to declare such a thing publicly.  But then, I think her (successful) efforts to sensationalize the entire disciplinary process have been very inappropriate, so this most recent state is pretty much par for the course.

 

2. I think Kate Kelly misrepresents the letter when she says that the Brethren define apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine." What they said was: "Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine."

Well, let's see...

• Kate Kelly publicly defied direct written and verbal instructions from Church leaders and trespassed and protested on sacred ground during a sacred convocation. This was specifically referenced in one of the bulleted items in the bishop's letter to Kate Kelly.
• The OW group has been promulgating "Six Discussions" which is extremely critical of "patriarchy."  These discussions are specifically identified in the bishop's letter.
• These discussions include statements that male-only ordination, which is the Church's doctrinal position, as "bollocks" (an Anglo-Saxon word meaning literally "testicles," but used pejoratively as "nonsense" - Thanks for keepin' it classy, Ordain Women!).
• These discussions declare that "God is not the author of" male-only ordination.
• A person is quoted in these discussions as rejecting male only ordination (speaking to the Church): "I'm not buying what you're selling."
• These discussions declare that "(t)he women’s priesthood ordination ban itself is not scriptural."

These are just a few examples I found while quickly skimming through the discussions.  Kate Kelly has also publicly accused her bishop, whom I think qualifies as one of those "faithful leaders" referenced above, of being a liar, cowardly and unchristlike.  She has also compared the disciplinary process against her to rape, her bishop to a rapist, and herself to a rape victim.

 

Whether the activities/statements in the foregoing list (which, I should note, is incomplete) constitute "repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine" is, fortunately, not for me or anyone else on this board to determine.

 

3. I hope Kate Kelly de-escalates.  This matter should not have been made public, and ongoing efforts to keep it public are not helpful, IMO.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Kate Kelly is not an idiot. She knows what she is doing. When her appeal is denied she will be able to take her twisted version of the First Presidency Statement and try to round up more sympathy for her. She will talk about being a victim. A group of men made her a victim. Because she is a woman. Watch.

[Calm]

 

3 Nephi 11:28-30 "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

 

If you believe that Ordain Women is doing away with contension and disputations on doctrine, that is fine.  When I look at the fruits or the results of Ordain Women, I can't see any fruit that is good.

So when you dispute with OW and encourage others to dispute with them, what does that say about you?

[Bsix]

The statement by First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve appears to be a 'read our lips' declaration.

 

I confess to be a stumped how a member of the LDS Church would see ambiguity and find ways to parse it to be an opening to pursueing the ordination of women...or to excuse participation in activist behaviors in opposition to Church teachings and the counsel of authorized ecclesiastical leaders.

 

Based on her Ms. Kelly's response, she seems to be incapable of...or unwilling to...read lips.

 

Six

[jwhitlock]

You just brought something to mind that makes me wonder if this isn't some of the problem.  John Lund talks about research in one of his CDs about how men and women's brains and brain connections work differently.  His example was something like men saying "the woman in the red dress looks nice" and thinking "the woman in the red dress looks nice."  The woman's brain processes that different though.  She doesn't just think, "the woman in the red dress looks nice", but also thinks "Does he like women in red dresses? Would he like me in red dresses? I'm not wearing a red dress - does that mean he doesn't think I look nice?" 

 

This doesn't mean that women always think in the negative or in questions. It just means that a simple statement to men can be full of meaning for women.  When I first heard that I scoffed at the idea, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that I was thinking that way a lot of the time. 

 

So when women hear, "men get blessings from using the priesthood" then there may be a whole lot more going on in our headsur heads.  Now I can look at that, think of all the things and come out with the conclusion "both men and women get blessings when serving others" but it has taken time to train myself.  Other women may not have it so easy, especially if they have men in their lives who have actually stated or shown a belief that they are better than women.  

I don't agree. I find this an unfair view of him.

 

 

I agree. I've read about this difference too and it's been very evident in some of the exchanges that have occurred.

[Helen47]

Elizabeth A. McCabe

"Phoebe: A Diakonos

Of all New Testament women, Phoebe might be the most hotly debated in terms of her role in the early church. She is described in Romans 16:1 as a diakonos, which is generally masked in English translations as “servant.” However, diakonos is the same word that Paul uses to describe his own ministry (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), but it is unlikely that this parallel could ever be gleaned from English translations alone.            

What is more is that the title of Phoebe as a diakonos accounts for the “first recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity.” Phoebe is tied to a specific local church, the church at Cenchrea, which makes her appointment a local function. Furthermore, the combination of diakonos with ousa “points more to a recognized ministry” or a “position of responsibility within the congregation.” “Minister” would be an acceptable translation in this regard or perhaps more appropriately, “[kai] also a minister,”whereas “servant” would prove inadequate. If Paul were simply aiming to convey a sense of service to her local church, this “would have probably been expressed by use of ‘diakoneō’ (Rom 15:25) or ‘diakonia’ (1 Cor 16:15).”[2]

The alternate definition for diakonos, namely an “intermediary” or “courier,” is also appropriate here. Diakonos in this regard means “one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction.”[3] In terms of Phoebe, this distinction would classify her as the letter carrier to the book of Romans. In light of the fact that many letters did not reach their designated locations in antiquity, the appointment of a woman as the carrier of the book of Romans is noteworthy, particularly since Romans is arguably the most significant book in the New Testament.

Historical Evidence Supporting Women Diakonoi

Besides Romans 16:1, women are credited as being diakonoi in epigraphical evidence. A few examples will suffice for my purposes. The first evidence for this occurrence originates during the reign of Trajan (98-117 C.E.), as recounted by Pliny. Pliny documents that “in Bithynia under Trajan there were female deacons.”[4] In Epistuale 10.96.8, Pliny has two “maidservants” or “slaves” (ancillae) tortured “who were being called ministers” (quae ministrae dicebantur). The word minister (ministra) is synonymous with the Latin word diāconus, for a diāconus can be defined as a “minister of the church, a deacon.”

Another piece of epigraphical evidence comes from Jerusalem (Mount of Olives); it dates from the latter half of the fourth century. What is fascinating about this writing, found on a stele, are the following words:

Sophia, hē diakonos, hē deutera Phoibē [5]

In this inscription, clearly a woman (evident by the feminine definite article) is being coined with the masculine term diakonos. If the Didascalia of the Apostles is utilized as the earliest known date for women deaconesses, one could logically conclude that deaconesses came into existence in written accounts from the “first half of the third century.”[6] What is more noteworthy is that women are still being designated as deacons (using masculine terms) even over approximately 150 years later.

However, what is especially notable about Sophia is the description of being the “second Phoebe.” Ute E. Eisen comments,

Horsley has shown that in non-Christian inscriptions the description “a second Homer” or the like is applied to individuals who gave outstanding service to their city. For Sophia this could mean that her title “the second Phoebe” reflects aspects of Phoebe’s activity beyond her work as a deacon (Rom 16:1-2), such as her title of prostatis.[7]

To be called the “second” was an honor bestowed upon an individual. Just as grateful citizens gave this title to their leaders, this notable woman won this acclaim, which may be attributed to “benefactions provided” possibly to “her church.”[8]

In addition to Sophia being named a deacon, a woman named Maria also merits the same honor. In evidence from the fourth century, the title is given to Maria of hē diakonos in a “stele of grey marble” erected for her tombstone. The exact inscription reads: “hē . . . diakonos Maria.” G. H. R. Horsley interprets this inscription as “evidence for a widow who exercised the function of deacon in the Byzantine church.”[9]"

[mormonnewb]

I see no ambiguity here. However, it is present tense. And I wouldn't expect otherwise in an ongoing Restoration. But that would give me no indication of any immediate change or possibility of one. This statement holds until there is change...which may be never. It could just as easily be said they chose this grammar to prevent the inevitable onslaught were they to have said "will ever be."

This has more possibilities, IMO. Because the problem is not God's eyes...it is our eyes. Women do not have equal merit in man's eyes and when they don't, their service doesn't (aside from being a really big help to the men.) That is what the church is slowly fixing by allowing prayers in General Conference and putting up pictures of women leaders. It goes back to my belief that what needs to be fixed before anything else is the cultural attitude toward women that has seeped into the church.

I'm not sure you can raise women in the eyes of men and still maintain "separate but equal" policies in regards to the priesthood. Because so long as women serve in "lesser" roles, we will continue to see them as less valuable.

This is why blacks fought so hard to be allowed full participation into all parts of society. Because we knew that so long as we were only allowed to be janitors, doormen and maids, we would NEVER be equal in the eyes of whites.

I think the same is true inside the Church. As long as women are relegated to the "menial" roles, they will not be seen as equal.

Of course, we can try to pretend that there are no "menial" roles in the Church, but good luck with that one. In my three years in the Church, I have NEVER heard a member brag to me that three of their sons have served as Ward Employment Specialists (or whatever it is we call the guy who helps people get jobs). But I have certainly heard them brag about those who serve in bishoprics. And while it might be nice if we didn't think in terms of important vs menial callings, we do.

And so long as women only serve in the latter, they will ALWAYS be inferior in the eyes of men AND WOMEN (interestingly, I've never heard an LDS mother brag about her daughter being an RS President either).

[ELF1024]

I've always thought, right or wrong, that if the Bishop was the Father of the Ward, then the Relief Society President was the Mother.

 

And the only thing, I have to add to this discussion, is that the thing I find most annoying about this entire subject, is that the people who are the most dismissive of a woman's opinion, are the women themselves.

 

[Calm]

Removed because I don't want to go along with the nonsense

Edited June 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

mormonnb-I know that Pres. Packer told GC sometime ago that he was proud his son got called to be a WML, if that helps!

[Calm]

I. As long as women are relegated to the "menial" roles, they will not be seen as equal).

Who is the one labelling the female roles as "menial"? If women themselves feel they are as valuable as the roles men are given, should we start to feel ashamed of them because you personally for whatever reason don't value them as highly?

Add-on: the more I think about this, the more the arrogance in your post astonishes and ticks me off.

As if I can't touch the hearts and souls of those I come in contact with and encourage them to seek out God as much as my bishop?

The bishop accomplishes what he does because of the lowly members who work side by side with him, who in my experience have just as much pride in their work as the bishop...which is great in gratitude and appreciation of being able to help in the work of God's kingdom in any way and little in personal pride that they got called to the position because they were better at it then someone else.

In my husband's mission experience he said the most successful missionary was a little girl, who beginning at around the age of ten had brought in over a hundred new members in just the few years of her membership...probably much more by now.

One of the most respected members of my previous ward was an old gentleman who had been a truck driver and had never held a "prestigious" calling but he was well known to every man and young man in the ward because he was always there every year in scouts to show them how to wood carve and he was at his post as usher every Sunday in his cowboy boots and at every ward activity, even if he hardly said a word. He had two outfits, one for winter, one for summer and always wore a bolo tie. His wife was as loved. They had foster children as long as they were able to as well as lovingly cared for a handicapped son until they got too old to be able to lift him around but they made sure he ws able to be at church every week in his spot because that is where he wanted to be even if he hadnt a clue what was going on besides being with his friends and everyone knew you could count on them for anything you asked.

I could name a dozen men and women in the same situation in my current ward and any ward I've ever been in, mem and women who never held a calling beyond clerk or counselor, maybe even never been a teacher save for in the nursery, never made the ultimate decisions, but loved and respected as any "leader" in the Church because you knew they would be there to help out at funerals, and if the septic tank backed up on a weekend, or to get the fruit in before a freeze or to clean up a house for a move or to pick you up across town because your husband needed to stay home with a sick kid.

Edited June 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Who is the one labelling the female roles as "menial"? If women themselves feel they are as valuable as the roles men are given, should we start to feel ashamed of them because you personally for whatever reason don't value them as highly?

Add-on: the more I think about this, the more the arrogance in your post astonishes and ticks me off.

As if I can't touch the hearts and souls of those I come in contact with and encourage them to seek out God as much as my bishop?

The bishop accomplishes what he does because of the lowly members who work side by side with him, who in my experience have just as much pride in their work as the bishop...which is great in gratitude and appreciation of being able to help in the work of God's kingdom in any way and little in personal pride that they got called to the position because they were better at it then someone else.

It "astonishes" you that people perceive those in leadership as being more important than others? Really?

So you think only us "arrogant" people perceive the President of the US as being more important than the White House butler? No, we ALL do. That's why we pay MILLIONS each year for his protection and allow the butler to take the bus home each night.

And I didn't need to be a member of the Church for ten MINUTES before I could tell that we are not so holy as to not think this way as well. In fact, we value those in leadership MORE than the Gentiles. After all, no one would suggest that KK being exiled from the country for leading a protest against Obama.

We hold our leaders in awe and reverence; and they are all MEN. We cite their words as prophetic announcements as to how we should live our lives -- the words of MEN.

So you can be "ticked" at me for pointing out the truth, but it will not change it one bit. We (rightly or wrongly) assign value to the worth of persons in accordance with the leadership they've been assigned. Since women by rule (divine or otherwise) have less leadership in the Church, they are perceived as less valuable.

We can fix that by asking HF to fix ALL of humanity or to fix the rule about ordaining women. Take your pick.

[mormonnewb]

Who is the one labelling the female roles as "menial"? If women themselves feel they are as valuable as the roles men are given, should we start to feel ashamed of them because you personally for whatever reason don't value them as highly?

Add-on: the more I think about this, the more the arrogance in your post astonishes and ticks me off.

As if I can't touch the hearts and souls of those I come in contact with and encourage them to seek out God as much as my bishop?

The bishop accomplishes what he does because of the lowly members who work side by side with him, who in my experience have just as much pride in their work as the bishop...which is great in gratitude and appreciation of being able to help in the work of God's kingdom in any way and little in personal pride that they got called to the position because they were better at it then someone else.

In my husband's mission experience he said the most successful missionary was a little girl, who beginning at around the age of ten had brought in over a hundred new members in just the few years of her membership...probably much more by now.

One of the most respected members of my previous ward was an old gentleman who had been a truck driver and had never held a "prestigious" calling but he was well known to every man and young man in the ward because he was always there every year in scouts to show them how to wood carve and he was at his post as usher every Sunday in his cowboy boots and at every ward activity, even if he hardly said a word. He had two outfits, one for winter, one for summer and always wore a bolo tie. His wife was as loved. They had foster children as long as they were able to as well as lovingly cared for a handicapped son until they got too old to be able to lift him around but they made sure he ws able to be at church every week in his spot because that is where he wanted to be even if he hadnt a clue what was going on besides being with his friends and everyone knew you could count on them for anything you asked.

I could name a dozen men and women in the same situation in my current ward and any ward I've ever been in, mem and women who never held a calling beyond clerk or counselor, maybe even never been a teacher save for in the nursery, never made the ultimate decisions, but loved and respected as any "leader" in the Church because you knew they would be there to help out at funerals, and if the septic tank backed up on a weekend, or to get the fruit in before a freeze or to clean up a house for a move or to pick you up across town because your husband needed to stay home with a sick kid.

Of course, you're right that us "little people" have the same value and worth as leaders. Yet, the progress in racial equality in America didn't happen because people began to realize that a janitor is equal to a CEO in God's eyes. It happened because blacks began to rise to the rank of CEO. After all, it's pretty difficult to feel superior to the person who signs your paycheck.

Given the esteem in which we hold leaders, why would women bishops, SPs and GAs not have an even greater effect on the saints?

[Calm]

"So you think only us "arrogant" people perceive the President of the US as being more important than the White House butler? No, we ALL do. That's why we pay MILLIONS each year for his protection and allow the butler to take the bus home each night."

The Church is not the US government.

[webbles]

It "astonishes" you that people perceive those in leadership as being more important than others? Really?

So you think only us "arrogant" people perceive the President of the US as being more important than the White House butler? No, we ALL do. That's why we pay MILLIONS each year for his protection and allow the butler to take the bus home each night.

And I didn't need to be a member of the Church for ten MINUTES before I could tell that we are not so holy as to not think this way as well. In fact, we value those in leadership MORE than the Gentiles. After all, no one would suggest that KK being exiled from the country for leading a protest against Obama.

We hold our leaders in awe and reverence; and they are all MEN. We cite their words as prophetic announcements as to how we should live our lives -- the words of MEN.

So you can be "ticked" at me for pointing out the truth, but it will not change it one bit. We (rightly or wrongly) assign value to the worth of persons in accordance with the leadership they've been assigned. Since women by rule (divine or otherwise) have less leadership in the Church, they are perceived as less valuable.

We can fix that by asking HF to fix ALL of humanity or to fix the rule about ordaining women. Take your pick.

 

Or we have another choice, ask Heavenly Father to fix ourselves so that we don't value people according to their station.  Instead, value them as children of God and serve them.  Didn't Christ tell the 12 that they should not worry on who is the greatest but that instead they should just serve (Luke 22: 24-30)?  Don't we have stories told of Bishops or Stake Presidents who are released and then called into the Primary and how wonderful that is?

[mormonnewb]

"So you think only us "arrogant" people perceive the President of the US as being more important than the White House butler? No, we ALL do. That's why we pay MILLIONS each year for his protection and allow the butler to take the bus home each night."

The Church is not the US government.

But as PEOPLE, the saints don't just switch off our system of values once we enter the Church. If I value my boss more than my assistant at work for five days, do I easily shut that off on the Sabbath?

And, in our Church, we aren't even encouraged to do so. We are encouraged to harken to the words of the Prophet (not the ward clerk). We VALUE the counsel of our leaders. And if it comes in conflict with the counsel of non-leaders (eg, Kelly, Dehlin, Waterman), we are instructed to cast it aside. It's very difficult to both respect someone and cast aside their counsel. You can LOVE them and ignore their wisdom (ie, our children). But to RESPECT them is quite a bit more difficult.

So in our Church, if a man is only ever asked to harken to the advice of other MEN, is it reasonable to expect that he would have equal respect for women? I just don't see how a typical human brain solves for XY in that case.

Edited June 29, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Or we have another choice, ask Heavenly Father to fix ourselves so that we don't value people according to their station. Instead, value them as children of God and serve them. Didn't Christ tell the 12 that they should not worry on who is the greatest but that instead they should just serve (Luke 22: 24-30)? Don't we have stories told of Bishops or Stake Presidents who are released and then called into the Primary and how wonderful that is?

That's my Option A (fixing all of mankind). Adding to words to the D&C ("and women") might be easier

[Tiki]

Teachings of Joseph Smith

Losing confidence in Church leaders, criticizing them, and neglecting any duty required by God lead to apostasy.

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

[Duncan]

But as PEOPLE, the saints don't just switch off our system of values once we enter the Church. If I value my boss more than my assistant at work for five days, do I easily shut that off on the Sabbath?

And, in our Church, we aren't even encouraged to do so. We are encouraged to harken to the words of the Prophet (not the ward clerk). We VALUE the counsel of our leaders. And if it comes in conflict with the counsel of non-leaders (eg, Kelly, Dehlin, Waterman), we are instructed to cast it aside. It's very difficult to both respect someone and cast aside their counsel. You can LOVE them and ignore their wisdom (ie, our children). But to RESPECT them is quite a bit more difficult.

So in our Church, if a man is only ever asked to harken to the advice of other MEN, is it reasonable to expect that he would have equal respect for women? I just don't see how a typical human brain solves for XY in that case.

 

listen to your leaders and follow the spirit, if the spirit confirms what your leaders are saying then do it if not then follow the spirit. 

[rodheadlee]

Why would you value your boss more than your assistant?