First Presidency Statement On Priesthood, Doubt And Apostasy

[Tiki]

"Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant."

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

[smac97]

DELETE

Edited June 29, 2014 by smac97

[Rain]

I do think some people value their leaders more than others around them. I cringe when people congratulate someone when they get a leadership calling.

But that isn't how it is for everyone. I find it funny that the ward employment specialist was mentioned because in our last ward we valued him more than the bishop. I actually really admire the bishop's wife, but that came long before he was my bishop. I was her visiting teacher and she had a lot of good insight.

If someone holds up one calling over another it's either because they are mixing up the person with the calling or they don't understand how it works.

[Brian 2.0]

 

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?"  

 

Ally Isom, in the Doug Frabrizio interview,  said that RS was a safe space to discuss these things, based on Pres. Burton's statement. In essence, they really are saying that the best place to have these discussions is amongst ourselves in a safe space (Relief Society)

 

[emphasis added]

 

Fabrizio: In a congregation a woman could stand up and say that?

 

 

 

Isom:  In my congregation we can.  I love what Sis. Burton just said. . .women shoulder burdens, we come from so many backgrounds, but we have to be each others' safe space. It has to be through one another that we have these conversations.

 

 

 

Isom: There are many avenues to express that and discuss that.  No one is questioning your ability in a congregation, in a Sunday school class, in a Relief Society class  Quoting President Burton: We have to be each other's safe space, it has to be through one another that we can have this conversation.

 

 

 

Fabrizio:  So it's ok for a woman in a Relief Society meeting to stand up and say, you know within the proper context of the lesson and whatever, [isom:]  Respectfully.  [Fabrizio] Respectfully.  "Hey, sisters, let's talk about the possibility that it's time now, for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that.  There were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away with us. . .let's talk about that.  The church is cool with that?

 

 

 

[isom] The conversation is welcome.  We've had a similar conversation in my Relief Society about gay marriage. . .we have those conversations, it is a safe place.  It has to be through one another that we have these conversations.

 

 

This part of the interview kind of blew me away.  I don't know if Isom didn't understand what he was saying, or if Isom just really goes to a different church than I do... but I'm sorry... is the following statement really a conversation that is "welcome" in Relief Society class:

 

"Hey, sisters, let's talk about the possibility that it's time now, for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that.  There were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away with us. . .let's talk about that. "

[hearserve]

Anyone who has served as a Bishop knows the importance of each member of his congregation.  One of the most important members of our ward just passed away.    Because of the life she lived, and her example of true Christ-like love, I know she touched more lives for good than I have as Bishop. Her calling was Relief Society chorister, but her calling did not define her, or what she meant to this ward.  It was how she exemplified Christ's teachings.  I believe that to be true with each member of our ward.  Callings come and go.  Hopefully our faith does not.

[Calm]

 If I value my boss more than my assistant at work for five days, do I easily shut that off on the Sabbath?

 

Your assistant is the one who makes life easier for you, your boss is the one who makes things harder for you.  The money he gives you is yours because you've earned it, he isn't giving it to you as a gift.  Why do you value him more?  Out of fear or love?

 

I want to live my life based on love and compassion and respect.  I take those standards I learned at home and in my faith and I take them out into the world where they keep me from going too far off from where I want to go.  

 

For those who are new in the Church, you are likely familiar with the "born again" phrase.  Part of being born again is throwing off the old man, which includes the standards of the old man that will stand in the way of eternal growth.  Can be hard especially if it seems so very very effective in dealing with a growing organization.  And since the church is an organization some of those old man standards work for basic structure so we keep them which makes it harder to keep them corralled to the business side of things and it creeps into the pastoral and begins to flavour the language there, but bottomline when it comes to the mission of the Church the answers will come from those born again (whether they've lived all their lives as LDS or just walked in the door or are at the "top" or down at nursery, who have put off the old man and put on the new and are moving into the faith by following the revelations of the Lord and the spiritual witness that tells us this is the way when we need it to…and tells us that the guy sitting next to us at the Conference Center has a few minutes to tell us something of more value to us than we might learn from the speakers that night…but because we listened to him, our hearts and minds were opened up so that we experienced great inspiration and great direction for our lives and not just a thrill of being in the presence of the 'top brass' so everyone moves forward in learning what is best to value and what is best to fondly lay aside as clothing for another place and time.

 

I value people in my life that change my life for the better.  I give honour to my leaders, but that doesn't make them any more important to me than the man or woman in the pew next to me that shares with me his wisdom in tidbits over the years as we talk about life and what went on the past week and if he shows up to help us dig ourselves out of our latest crisis.  I will more likely follow the advice of a woman friend who has been where I've been and come out from what I can tell beautifully because I can see she's done it than I would a leader's just because he is a leader.  I do not honour God as the greatest because he is some far away omnipotent force who could give me flowers or thorns all day long without a twitch, I value God because he is the nearest and dearest of friends and family and the one who understands when no one else does.  He has the most impact in my life because he helps me change bit by bit, not because he arranges for me to get a great new job with all the bells and whistles.

 

And I don't see why I or the Church should be forced to completely change their standard of value because outside things are done differently.  We need to repair the damage we've allowed to creep in from the errors of the traditions of our fathers and mothers and we need to resist the errors of the traditions of our peers.  Just because they are good and valuable solutions for their secular community doesn't mean they are good solutions for the LDS community.  LDS are statistic outliers, we do many things the opposite that is expected or done by those people group us with  religiously speaking and that difference works!  Why would others' solutions work for us then?  We need to find our own solutions by working within our own dynamics and not assuming that if something works well out there it is going to work in here.

 

And isn't it fun not to have to live by the same set of rules day in and day out, you can be in one playbox during the week with an occasional visit to the church's box and then really get into building those castles and bridges and the most miraculous kingdom in the weekend playbox devoted to Church.  Church is a vacation from work, work becomes a vacation from Church, we enjoy life better because of the change, not resent it because it takes more energy and effort.  We learn different things because we get a chance to live a new life instead of just transplanting the old secular one onto our new faith creature.  

 

In my wards, we are encouraged to harken to the words of the person who stands at the pulpit whether it is the high councilor or the clerk or the kid just out of Primary or just about to go off to college or  the guy who plays the organ (love his talks, he has this great rhythm of speech that includes a hidden little chuckle that I could just listen to all day without actually paying attention, big plus is he says good stuff too), the new mom who just moved in or the missionary just about to leave (usually sweet by spacey) or returned (usually sweet and more focused by stil awkward because he hasn't got rid of his mission mannerisms yet.  We get general conference twice a year, stake conference twice a year and the rest we are talking to each other from the pews mostly save for that high councilor (and my husband has been one of those so you know not that big of a deal in my eyes, people just aren't as familiar with them not being in their ward so it throws off the dynamics).  And the people aren't just standing up there for their own benefit.

 

If you love the Saints because in part they are different (which is what I am getting from you in the past), why are you so sure that changing them like those outside the Church is the best thing?  I am not saying we don't need to change.  We've needed to change from the first time we held a meeting and we are way, way behind in schedule I bet in what we could have accomplished up to now and what we really have done…but don't anchor us even more by dragging in more for the lack of a better word worldly stuff which can be great for the world, but not for the Kingdom.  I've seen a lot of good adopted secular programs that have come and gone in the Church that did nothing but make a lot of manuals for people to pass around and a sense of general failure, programs that had been effective outside church walls but never caught fire inside.  We burn with a different fuel in here and that fuel requires a special treatment to ignite it.  If people try to ignite it with the world's fuel they will not end up with a church that smells a bit like a gas station but shines brightly but a gas station that is built on an old burnt out church.

 

There is only one Lord of our faith, only one solution through him, only one source of peace, only one we need to worship and honor with all our our hearts, minds and souls.  The rest we can have reservations about all we want as long as they don't impede on that total discipleship of the Lord.  It may not be very easy to find it, but is there anything else out there that has more value to us?

 

We walk into the temple as if it is a whole new world.  In there the men and women in white look all the same, who can tell who is the bishop, who is the nursery leader and which is the more important job?  We dress the same, we move as one, we speak as one, we hope this leads us to love God as one…and we covenant all to Him and His Kingdom.  If we can accomplish this in the temple, leaving the standards of the world behind there, then with a great deal of work perhaps one day we can do that for our chapels.  It might be harder than bringing the world into the chapels, but if I had to choose, I think it will be turning our chapels into temples (in attitude no ordinances) and then further into our homes …that will be the solution, not attempting to live by the rules of a world that can't be bothered to feed a huge chunk of their people because they aren't valued by them, who claim they want to care for the people's health and can't even manage to get through the paperwork, who value as important people who promote violence and hatred, adultery and unchastity because it makes them a buck and they can have fun doing it (I hope they have fun doing it, what a drag if they don't).  There are a lot of good standards in the world and we should learn from them, but that doesn't mean we have to adopt them for a situation they just may not be applicable for, especially when we have the best source of standards available to us, Christ and his messenger the Holy Ghost who will bring them directly to us if that is what we want or if we prefer to take it slower in opening ourselves up and start by listening to his prophet messengers and using the spirit to tell us what we need to focus on and learning line upon line that way.

 

Do I want my life to be ¾ world and ¼ temple or ¾ temple and ¼ world that is highly coloured by the temple?  Which will bring us closer to a zion society?  A society that doesn't even believe in it or a temple celestial life that gives us an example of what it might be like.  Maybe the first step to that Zion society is to truly turn one's back on the world's standard and start judging people's value by their good hearts and their kindness, by how God sees them (as in "tell me God about this man" and not "I will tell God about this man") and not by what power they have over us or what we can manipulate out of them.

 

Sorry for the rambling…I didn't map it out very well tonight, new thoughts kept popping in.

[Calm]

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. 

What was the motivation in your view of the abolitionists who valued the blacks enough to help them escape slavery, sometimes at the cost of their own lives?  Somehow I doubt it was the money the slaves were giving them.  And why did the blacks begin to rise to the rank of CEO in the first place?  They didn't have the money and power to get there, what else  then were they valued enough that happened?

[Calm]

This part of the interview kind of blew me away.  I don't know if Isom didn't understand what he was saying, or if Isom just really goes to a different church than I do... but I'm sorry... is the following statement really a conversation that is "welcome" in Relief Society class:

 

"Hey, sisters, let's talk about the possibility that it's time now, for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that.  There were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away with us. . .let's talk about that. "

This is Ally Isom:

 

 

 

If she says she's had that conversation in her RS class, I believe her.

 

There are some interesting changes in one of the youth manuals about teaching how to ask questions.  They use OD2 and the Race and the Priesthood Gospel Topic as an example.  Conversations are changing, both from the top down and the bottom up.

[Brian 2.0]

This is Ally Isom:

 

 

 

If she says she's had that conversation in her RS class, I believe her.

 

There are some interesting changes in one of the youth manuals about teaching how to ask questions.  They use OD2 and the Race and the Priesthood Gospel Topic as an example.  Conversations are changing, both from the top down and the bottom up.

 

I don't think she said she had that conversation per say, but had a similar conversation about gay marriage.  I'm not a woman so I can't test it out, but I would love to get a dozen of women and on the day when the Priesthood lesson is talked about raise their hand and say the following verbatim:

 

"Hey, sisters, let's talk about the possibility that it's time now, for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that.  There were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away with us. . .let's talk about that. "

 

And get a report back on what happened after that.  Was there some discussion about it? Was it shut down quickly?  Was the women talked to after class?

 

I honestly don't know what would happen.  If the comments are welcomed by most of the RS classes and discussed, then GREAT!  I just didn't think statements like this were kosher.

[Calm]

I don't think she said she had that conversation per say, but had a similar conversation about gay marriage.  I'm not a woman so I can't test it out, but I would love to get a dozen of women and on the day when the Priesthood lesson is talked about raise their hand and say the following verbatim:

 

 

And get a report back on what happened after that.  Was there some discussion about it? Was it shut down quickly?  Was the women talked to after class?

 

I honestly don't know what would happen.  If the comments are welcomed by most of the RS classes and discussed, then GREAT!  I just didn't think statements like this were kosher.

She didn't say this type of conversations would just magically appear.  It is a place that needs to be created.  Her RS is on the way, ours can be to…or we can just stay like we are.  But the big thing is we have now been given permission to start having these kinds of conversations in a couple of places.

[mormonnewb]

Your assistant is the one who makes life easier for you, your boss is the one who makes things harder for you.  The money he gives you is yours because you've earned it, he isn't giving it to you as a gift.  Why do you value him more?  Out of fear or love?

 

I want to live my life based on love and compassion and respect.  I take those standards I learned at home and in my faith and I take them out into the world where they keep me from going too far off from where I want to go.  

 

For those who are new in the Church, you are likely familiar with the "born again" phrase.  Part of being born again is throwing off the old man, which includes the standards of the old man that will stand in the way of eternal growth.  Can be hard especially if it seems so very very effective in dealing with a growing organization.  And since the church is an organization some of those old man standards work for basic structure so we keep them which makes it harder to keep them corralled to the business side of things and it creeps into the pastoral and begins to flavour the language there, but bottomline when it comes to the mission of the Church the answers will come from those born again (whether they've lived all their lives as LDS or just walked in the door or are at the "top" or down at nursery, who have put off the old man and put on the new and are moving into the faith by following the revelations of the Lord and the spiritual witness that tells us this is the way when we need it to…and tells us that the guy sitting next to us at the Conference Center has a few minutes to tell us something of more value to us than we might learn from the speakers that night…but because we listened to him, our hearts and minds were opened up so that we experienced great inspiration and great direction for our lives and not just a thrill of being in the presence of the 'top brass' so everyone moves forward in learning what is best to value and what is best to fondly lay aside as clothing for another place and time.

 

I value people in my life that change my life for the better.  I give honour to my leaders, but that doesn't make them any more important to me than the man or woman in the pew next to me that shares with me his wisdom in tidbits over the years as we talk about life and what went on the past week and if he shows up to help us dig ourselves out of our latest crisis.  I will more likely follow the advice of a woman friend who has been where I've been and come out from what I can tell beautifully because I can see she's done it than I would a leader's just because he is a leader.  I do not honour God as the greatest because he is some far away omnipotent force who could give me flowers or thorns all day long without a twitch, I value God because he is the nearest and dearest of friends and family and the one who understands when no one else does.  He has the most impact in my life because he helps me change bit by bit, not because he arranges for me to get a great new job with all the bells and whistles.

 

And I don't see why I or the Church should be forced to completely change their standard of value because outside things are done differently.  We need to repair the damage we've allowed to creep in from the errors of the traditions of our fathers and mothers and we need to resist the errors of the traditions of our peers.  Just because they are good and valuable solutions for their secular community doesn't mean they are good solutions for the LDS community.  LDS are statistic outliers, we do many things the opposite that is expected or done by those people group us with  religiously speaking and that difference works!  Why would others' solutions work for us then?  We need to find our own solutions by working within our own dynamics and not assuming that if something works well out there it is going to work in here.

 

And isn't it fun not to have to live by the same set of rules day in and day out, you can be in one playbox during the week with an occasional visit to the church's box and then really get into building those castles and bridges and the most miraculous kingdom in the weekend playbox devoted to Church.  Church is a vacation from work, work becomes a vacation from Church, we enjoy life better because of the change, not resent it because it takes more energy and effort.  We learn different things because we get a chance to live a new life instead of just transplanting the old secular one onto our new faith creature.  

 

In my wards, we are encouraged to harken to the words of the person who stands at the pulpit whether it is the high councilor or the clerk or the kid just out of Primary or just about to go off to college or  the guy who plays the organ (love his talks, he has this great rhythm of speech that includes a hidden little chuckle that I could just listen to all day without actually paying attention, big plus is he says good stuff too), the new mom who just moved in or the missionary just about to leave (usually sweet by spacey) or returned (usually sweet and more focused by stil awkward because he hasn't got rid of his mission mannerisms yet.  We get general conference twice a year, stake conference twice a year and the rest we are talking to each other from the pews mostly save for that high councilor (and my husband has been one of those so you know not that big of a deal in my eyes, people just aren't as familiar with them not being in their ward so it throws off the dynamics).  And the people aren't just standing up there for their own benefit.

 

If you love the Saints because in part they are different (which is what I am getting from you in the past), why are you so sure that changing them like those outside the Church is the best thing?  I am not saying we don't need to change.  We've needed to change from the first time we held a meeting and we are way, way behind in schedule I bet in what we could have accomplished up to now and what we really have done…but don't anchor us even more by dragging in more for the lack of a better word worldly stuff which can be great for the world, but not for the Kingdom.  I've seen a lot of good adopted secular programs that have come and gone in the Church that did nothing but make a lot of manuals for people to pass around and a sense of general failure, programs that had been effective outside church walls but never caught fire inside.  We burn with a different fuel in here and that fuel requires a special treatment to ignite it.  If people try to ignite it with the world's fuel they will not end up with a church that smells a bit like a gas station but shines brightly but a gas station that is built on an old burnt out church.

 

There is only one Lord of our faith, only one solution through him, only one source of peace, only one we need to worship and honor with all our our hearts, minds and souls.  The rest we can have reservations about all we want as long as they don't impede on that total discipleship of the Lord.  It may not be very easy to find it, but is there anything else out there that has more value to us?

 

We walk into the temple as if it is a whole new world.  In there the men and women in white look all the same, who can tell who is the bishop, who is the nursery leader and which is the more important job?  We dress the same, we move as one, we speak as one, we hope this leads us to love God as one…and we covenant all to Him and His Kingdom.  If we can accomplish this in the temple, leaving the standards of the world behind there, then with a great deal of work perhaps one day we can do that for our chapels.  It might be harder than bringing the world into the chapels, but if I had to choose, I think it will be turning our chapels into temples (in attitude no ordinances) and then further into our homes …that will be the solution, not attempting to live by the rules of a world that can't be bothered to feed a huge chunk of their people because they aren't valued by them, who claim they want to care for the people's health and can't even manage to get through the paperwork, who value as important people who promote violence and hatred, adultery and unchastity because it makes them a buck and they can have fun doing it (I hope they have fun doing it, what a drag if they don't).  There are a lot of good standards in the world and we should learn from them, but that doesn't mean we have to adopt them for a situation they just may not be applicable for, especially when we have the best source of standards available to us, Christ and his messenger the Holy Ghost who will bring them directly to us if that is what we want or if we prefer to take it slower in opening ourselves up and start by listening to his prophet messengers and using the spirit to tell us what we need to focus on and learning line upon line that way.

 

Do I want my life to be ¾ world and ¼ temple or ¾ temple and ¼ world that is highly coloured by the temple?  Which will bring us closer to a zion society?  A society that doesn't even believe in it or a temple celestial life that gives us an example of what it might be like.  Maybe the first step to that Zion society is to truly turn one's back on the world's standard and start judging people's value by their good hearts and their kindness, by how God sees them (as in "tell me God about this man" and not "I will tell God about this man") and not by what power they have over us or what we can manipulate out of them.

 

Sorry for the rambling…I didn't map it out very well tonight, new thoughts kept popping in.

As usual, you express a wonderful ideal and I'm ALL for a universal brother/sisterhood. I just don't know why "separate but equal" must be part of it. In fact, I see it as the major obstacle to its fulfillment.

Whenever one group of people is given a duty/privilege/burden not given to another group, the human mind will always ask, "Why?" We saw that with blacks and the priesthood. People began to invent reasons for the ban and NONE of them were flattering to blacks. They all were posited on some inferior quality possessed by blacks (eg, lack of valiance, a curse). And this only makes sense. After all, HF certainly wouldn't keep His MOST righteous children from exercising the power of God on the earth (the priesthood), would he?

Now, because we men are married to women, we can't afford to OPENLY say that you are inferior. So we do just the opposite -- we patronize you by telling you how we all "married up." But don't think for a minute that we actually think that God gave us the priesthood because He thinks women would exercise it better than we do. That would be illogical. If God chooses the least righteous to possess the priesthood, then it would be given to the worst of the worst -- drug dealers, pimps, MLM reps. Yes, I'm kidding ... about the drug dealers.

Seriously, how do we possibly achieve a state of mutual respect when a core of our doctrine screams, "Women are not to be trusted with God's greatest power on earth"?

Someone once said, "Civilization is the progressive elimination of the distinction between Us and Them." This sentiment is at the heart of the Zion you described above. Yet, so long as the priesthood is restricted to "us" men, then "them" women will be held in less esteem.

And before the shouts of sexism arise, let's be clear -- I believe women are equal to men. That's why I believe that HF wants ALL of His children to labor together though the power of His holy priesthood.

[Pahoran]

As usual, you express a wonderful ideal and I'm ALL for a universal brother/sisterhood. I just don't know why "separate but equal" must be part of it. In fact, I see it as the major obstacle to its fulfillment.

Whenever one group of people is given a duty/privilege/burden not given to another group, the human mind will always ask, "Why?" We saw that with blacks and the priesthood. People began to invent reasons for the ban and NONE of them were flattering to blacks. They all were posited on some inferior quality possessed by blacks (eg, lack of valiance, a curse). And this only makes sense. After all, HF certainly wouldn't keep His MOST righteous children from exercising the power of God on the earth (the priesthood), would he?

Now, because we men are married to women, we can't afford to OPENLY say that you are inferior. So we do just the opposite -- we patronize you by telling you how we all "married up." But don't think for a minute that we actually think that God gave us the priesthood because He thinks women would exercise it better than we do. That would be illogical. If God chooses the least righteous to possess the priesthood, then it would be given to the worst of the worst -- drug dealers, pimps, MLM reps. Yes, I'm kidding ... about the drug dealers.

So those believing Latter-day Saints who say they don't think women are inferior are lying. Is that it?

Because, make no mistake: a believing Latter-day Saint is one who believes that the Priesthood was restored to the earth when Peter, James and John (three heavenly guys) appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (two earthly guys) and conferred it upon them, so that they could perform the ordinances through which the power of godliness is made manifest.

If they don't believe that, then they may call themselves whatever they like, but they are Mormons in name only.

There are those who think the Priesthood is merely a social construct. They are entitled to that view, but it cannot in any way be reconciled with the belief I describe above. Those who hold such a belief will always think of the Priesthood in terms of social status.

But that is the thinking of the natural man.

And as Latter-day Saints, we are called to put off the natural man.

When we come to Church, we need to leave our cultural baggage -- including our beguiling political philosophies, such as those that we self-flatteringly label "progressive" -- at the door.

Earthly philosophies will keep us earth-bound; they will never help us hold concourse with the angels.

 

Seriously, how do we possibly achieve a state of mutual respect when a core of our doctrine screams, "Women are not to be trusted with God's greatest power on earth"?

Does it?

Where?

 

Someone once said, "Civilization is the progressive elimination of the distinction between Us and Them." This sentiment is at the heart of the Zion you described above. Yet, so long as the priesthood is restricted to "us" men, then "them" women will be held in less esteem.

Isaiah 55:8-9

 

And before the shouts of sexism arise, let's be clear -- I believe women are equal to men. That's why I believe that HF wants ALL of His children to labor together though the power of His holy priesthood.

You must really think Heavenly Father is completely inarticulate, since He hasn't managed to get that message across to the apostles and prophets.

Isn't He lucky to have you to tell us what He wants?

Don't you think it's possible you're being just a tad presumptuous?

If I have to choose between following the First Presidency and following an anonymous internet poster, I'll stick with the Lord's anointed servants.

If it's all the same to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

 You must really think Heavenly Father is completely inarticulate, since He hasn't managed to get that message across to the apostles and prophets.

You must think HF is equally inarticulate because He hasn't been able to get across to ME the message that He only wants men in the priesthood.

Or is it possible that my stubbornness and "progressiveness" prevents me from getting the message? If so, then perhaps the same things prevent the message of equality from getting to high places. Or do the apostles stop being MEN when they are appointed to their posts?

[jana at jade house]

" ... 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. ...

 

 

Thank you for this thought. I have never thought about a separate and as yet unrevealed female Priesthood.... hmmmm something to think over.

[Avatar4321]

She said herself in one of her interviews that she is a "delusional optimist", so I guess it's not too suprising that she's reading into like that, but the Church seems to be stating that doing what she did will get one excommunicated.  She's still stuck on this belief that she was just asking questions when she wasn't.

 

Then maybe she needs to stop lying to herself and face the truth. She might not like it but the truth will set her free and help her get back on the path of membership.

[jana at jade house]

" ... 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. ...

 

 

Thank you for this thought. I have never thought about a separate and as yet unrevealed female Priesthood.... hmmmm something to think over.

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

I don't think she is an idiot, but I really don't think she knows what she is doing any more than those soldiers who crucified they Savior knew what they were doing. If she truly understood what she was doing, I think she wouldn't be doing it.

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

Actually, yes It astonishes me that anyone finds leadership more important than others. Paul's admonition about the body of Christ and Christ's clear teachings that service it was gives people distinction in the Kingdom should tell us otherwise. We do not look at leadership as the Gentiles do.

 

Study the scriptures and learn from them.

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

Why do you value your boss more than your assistant to begin with? That doesn't make any sense.

[Senator]

I don't think she is an idiot, but I really don't think she knows what she is doing any more than those soldiers who crucified they Savior knew what they were doing. If she truly understood what she was doing, I think she wouldn't be doing it.

 

Are you willing to adopt the Savior's attitude, that he exhibited toward those soldiers, for Kate Kelly?

Edited June 29, 2014 by Senator

[Tacenda]

I think this person has a great view on how women could be more equal in the church.  I found a discussion through this link   http://www.debtordebt.com/forum/poll-is-the-mormon-church-sexist-t277799.html

 

Quote below:

 

"I'm Mormon and I think it is. Consider the following that would have to be done for equal rights:
Encourage partnership in marriage, and eliminate the idea that husbands preside over their wives.

Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).

Balance the stories and images of boys and men in church publications, talks, and other media with stories and images of girls and women.

Invite women in Church leadership positions to speak and pray during General Conference in numbers equal to the participation of men.

Encourage leaders to use gender-inclusive language whenever possible.

Recognize that girls and boys, women and men are equally responsible for appropriate sexual behavior, and avoid reducing morality to sexuality, and modesty to a preoccupation with women’s and girls’ clothing.

Instruct bishops to refrain from asking Church members probing questions about sexual practices and experiences.

Call women to perform pastoral counseling, particularly for women and girls who have been sexually abused.

Choose a General Relief Society Presidency and General Board that reflect the diversity of viewpoint and circumstance in the Church, and establish frequent meetings between the First Presidency and the General Relief Society Presidency.

Include the Stake Relief Society President in Stake Presidency meetings, and appoint women to meet with the High Council.

Delegate more expansive supervisory authority to the Stake and Ward Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidencies, including approval of personnel, programs, and activities.

Include women among stake and ward leaders who hear evidence and offer judgment in Church disciplinary councils.

Include the local Relief Society president in all bishopric meetings, and rotate the planning of Sacrament services among the Relief Society president and members of the bishopric.

Examine all Church positions to determine whether they can be filled without regard to gender.

Appoint women as presidents of Church universities and heads of administrative departments.

Expand hiring practices in the Seminaries and Institutes of Religion and within the religion departments at Church universities to provide women the same placement, advancement, and tenure opportunities as men.

Call young women as well as young men to serve missions at the same age and for the same length of time, and afford women the same opportunity as men to function as district leaders, zone leaders, and assistants to the president.

Lift the prohibition on women's participation in the blessing of their children.

Change temple marriage policies so that men and women have equal opportunity to be sealed to their second spouses after they are widowed or divorced.

Consider further wording changes to temple ceremonies and ordinances such that both men and women make the same covenants and enjoy the same promises.

Recognize women as witnesses for baptisms and marriage sealings.

Restore the former institutionally-accepted practice of women giving blessings of healing and comfort."

 

Me:  I can't remember what thread it was but Cal and MF were discussing a bit on the nuance of sexism in the church.  I can think of a big nuance and that is the fact that women when sealed to their husbands are giving themselves to him but he doesn't return the favor.  She doesn't know his new name only he knows hers.  I believe it's been said the husband will call her out of the grave.  Not the Saviour apparently.  So in a sense the husband is Lord over her.  I can quote from church history this is the case but maybe it's from some non authority persons in history, I don't know.  But in the bible only the Saviour or God will call, not a husband, oh and btw if you aren't called by your husband, I believe I read that you will become a servant and a gentile.  Great I like to serve....being an "angel" fits with my goals.  A gentile one even better!  Or should I have said gentle? 

 

[webbles]

As usual, you express a wonderful ideal and I'm ALL for a universal brother/sisterhood. I just don't know why "separate but equal" must be part of it. In fact, I see it as the major obstacle to its fulfillment.

Whenever one group of people is given a duty/privilege/burden not given to another group, the human mind will always ask, "Why?" We saw that with blacks and the priesthood. People began to invent reasons for the ban and NONE of them were flattering to blacks. They all were posited on some inferior quality possessed by blacks (eg, lack of valiance, a curse). And this only makes sense. After all, HF certainly wouldn't keep His MOST righteous children from exercising the power of God on the earth (the priesthood), would he?

Now, because we men are married to women, we can't afford to OPENLY say that you are inferior. So we do just the opposite -- we patronize you by telling you how we all "married up." But don't think for a minute that we actually think that God gave us the priesthood because He thinks women would exercise it better than we do. That would be illogical. If God chooses the least righteous to possess the priesthood, then it would be given to the worst of the worst -- drug dealers, pimps, MLM reps. Yes, I'm kidding ... about the drug dealers.

Seriously, how do we possibly achieve a state of mutual respect when a core of our doctrine screams, "Women are not to be trusted with God's greatest power on earth"?

Someone once said, "Civilization is the progressive elimination of the distinction between Us and Them." This sentiment is at the heart of the Zion you described above. Yet, so long as the priesthood is restricted to "us" men, then "them" women will be held in less esteem.

And before the shouts of sexism arise, let's be clear -- I believe women are equal to men. That's why I believe that HF wants ALL of His children to labor together though the power of His holy priesthood.

The three members of the Godhead are male.  Even adding in Heavenly Mother, you still have 3 males to 1 female.  We don't have a female savior.  We don't have a female Holy Ghost.  Almost all of the ancient prophets in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are men.  To re-ask your question: How do we possibly achieve a state of mutual respect when our core history and Godhead screams: "Women are not in the Godhead nor have they ever been prophets"?

 

The answer is that each person needs to change how they view each other.  We need to become a Zion people.  Don't view people above others because they have more recognition.  Don't worry about who is more important in the church.  Just serve where you are.  To paraphase Paul, the church needs its heads as well as its fingers and toes.  If we are all heads, or arms, or torsos, we would have problems.

[webbles]

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

I read your Option A as praying for Heavenly Father to change everyone.  I'm saying that one should pray just to change oneself and not worry about everyone.

[CV75]

New statement released today:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/prophets-and-apostles/recent-messages/june-first-presidency-statement.pdf?lang=eng

Edit: A clear and concise statement by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve on ordination to the Priesthood, asking questions, and acting in defiance.

If the second sentence only describes things as they are presently (meaning since 1830 as a reflection of what has been going on from the beginning), then I would think that would be enough cause for sustaining the First Presidency in the rest of the letter.

[CV75]

The first paragraph seems to address only two possible aspects of the priesthood: the "blessings" of the priesthood ("equally available to men and women"), and "serving in priesthood offices" (men only). 

 

That leaves out a fundamental aspect of "the priesthood" in the Church: acting with God's power and authority to bless the lives of others, and receiving greater blessing in return.  The Church teaches:

 

I can't really blame a woman for reading that and thinking "hey, I too would like to find my life sweetened and my discernment sharpened, and my feelings tender and compassionate, and my spirit strong and valiant, with a never ending source of happiness springing up to eternal life."  Who wouldn't want that?

I take "the blessings of His priesthood being equally available" to refer to women acting with God's power and authority to bless the lives of others, as Elder Oaks explained.So I really don't think they are withholding any aspect of the priesthood except "office."