First Presidency Statement On Priesthood, Doubt And Apostasy

[Avatar4321]

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

 

In order to do that, she would have to do something to me. She hasn't. How can I forgive her for something she hasn't done?

More to the point, we've been wanting her to return and repent since before she had her DC. Why would we cease now?

[juliann]

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. "

 

I probably should have pointed out that Fabrizio was aggressively interrupting her with comments like this as she was trying to explain that we could talk with one another.  So I'm not sure I would give much credence to how he characterized such a discussion.  After he said that, he added "respectfully," and she jumped in to repeat that so I think that is where her attention was.  That is why I bolded what she repeatedly emphasized.

 

What I got from it was that conversations on controversial topics are OK, in the right context when done respectfully.  I would suspect that they may be coming to the conclusion that there is more chance of positive comments being made in a church setting than the internet, so better to keep it in house where members have more input (and controls.) 

 

I don't think that this means anything goes...or that there isn't a high likelihood of the conversation starter being shut down by the usual suspects, or that there wouldn't be collective breath holding. But it has to start somewhere. And I wouldn't let a smack-down comment to someone else go unchallenged.  If it is done in Mormonspeak it is usually effective.

[Pahoran]

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?

Actually I see the issue in terms of Harold B. Lee's talk on "Radio Tubes."

Apart from that, the Lord isn't going to give me a revelation for my bishop's stewardship. Nor, for that matter, for the Relief Society President's stewardship. He's also not going to give my bishop a revelation for the SP's stewardship.

And He's not going to give you a revelation for the stewardship of the apostles and prophets.

And -- make no mistake -- anyone who claims that He has done so is a false prophet.

You are entitled to your opinion on any subject you please. But the minute you imagine that your pet cause is so gosh-darned important that the Lord will reverse the order of heaven just for your gospel hobby-horse, then you have lost the plot.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited June 29, 2014 by Pahoran

[why me]

I have to wonder just where heavenly father is in all this. I have read many people comment about how the church is changing from within about issues pertaining to females. And about how the conversation is becoming different, more inclusive. Is this heavenly father or the church or are they one and the same? Interestingly, now that some women are speaking out and  the church seems to be listening to what they are saying about calling for change, I am wondering just where our heavenly parents are in all this. For example, who is really listening, the church of human beings or heavenly father.

 

It would seem that if this is god's church it is god who is listening and instilling the changes. If so, what has changed his mind about women in his church. And I have to wonder just what the role of heavenly mother is in the conversation. Just questions that I have.

 

I asked these questions because it does seem that our heavenly parents are being ignored in the human converation about women and the church. I hardly ever hear of heavenly father being behind the changes with heavenly mother's support. It seems a very human conversation with mention of the church, as a building of people or as a generic term. For example, the statement by the church would have to come from heavenly father and yet there is hardly any discussion of his hand in it and why.

Edited June 30, 2014 by why me

[Tacenda]

Listening to Claudia Bushman...where has she been in all this?  To me she is pro women's issues.  Hopefully this is an ok thread to post this. ETA:  I was at this MS conference (the only one I've attended), it was wonderful to listen and be in the same room as the Bushman's. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxlD_shNiCE

Edited June 30, 2014 by Tacenda

[CV75]

I have to wonder just where heavenly father is in all this. I have read many people comment about how the church is changing from within about issues pertaining to females. And about how the conversation is becoming different, more inclusive. Is this heavenly father or the church or are they one and the same? Interestingly, now that some women are speaking out and  the church seems to be listening to what they are saying about calling for change, I am wondering just where our heavenly parents are in all this. For example, who is really listening, the church of human beings or heavenly father.

 

It would seem that if this is god's church it is god who is listening and instilling the changes. If so, what has changed his mind about women in his church. And I have to wonder just what the role of heavenly mother is in the conversation. Just questions that I have.

 

I asked these questions because it does seem that our heavenly parents are being ignored in the human converation about women and the church. I hardly ever hear of heavenly father being behind the changes with heavenly mother's support. It seems a very human conversation with mention of the church, as a building of people or as a generic term. For example, the statement by the church would have to come from heavenly father and yet there is hardly any discussion of his hand in it and why.

I think God's children govern themselves, and He teaches them correct principles through the light of Christ, with which they continue to govern themselves until they enter His kingdom on earth.

 

Once we enter His kingdom and have the Gift of the Holy Ghost, He reveals correct principles (whether we are ready of not!) through His servants the prophets, and we govern ourselves, hopefully with the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit and the blessings of the covenants we keep. He also continues to reveal correct principles to us individually, which do not conflict or contend with what He reveals through His servants.

 

I think the way men and women treat each other is more a function of their personal sanctification than any edict from God in how He runs His earthly kingdom. He has revealed many things about the eternal nature of men and women, marriage, family and so forth, and the covenants related to these things, and the organization of His power and kingdom on earth.

 

I think the improving inclusion of women in councils and so forth is a function of all the above. I think it is built into the order that we are learning to live within and are learning to apply ourselves more perfectly in keeping. I think it has to do with a threshold of ability for men and women to work together in the kingdom of God, both within and between their respective genders. In scripture and personal journals and so forth we see how this has played out on a small or individual scale but it is becoming more general as the Lord prepares His people (or rather, as more people prepare themselves for Him) for His Second Coming.

[Tacenda]

We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.
–LDS Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles


Didn't the church distance itself from church doctrine of the past and disavowed many of them? Did it not encourage others to do the same?
- Non-LDS Council of the Last Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Noms.

Revelation vs Rebellion? Is that why?

 

 

C/P from another forum.  I see a problem here. 
 

[Tacenda]

http://rationalfaiths.com/drowning-church/

 

From the article:

 

Telling someone who is in or has been through a crisis of faith that they’re free to ask questions in the church is like telling a drowning person that they are free to grab onto the life preserver that no one is throwing to them. It is standing aside and watching someone drown all the while telling them that they should have seen the warning signs or turbulent water. Nevermind that the signs that were needed to avoid this crisis were long since buried in the sand of correlation.

[Duncan]

 

We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

–LDS Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Didn't the church distance itself from church doctrine of the past and disavowed many of them? Did it not encourage others to do the same?

- Non-LDS Council of the Last Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Noms.

Revelation vs Rebellion? Is that why?

 

 

C/P from another forum.  I see a problem here. 

 

 

 

 

sure but we don't excommunicate people who lived in the past. We live in 2014 and whatever the current interpretation of policy, practice- Christ's doctrine doesn't change (the good news in 33ad still is the good news in 2014)

[Duncan]

http://rationalfaiths.com/drowning-church/

 

From the article:

 

Telling someone who is in or has been through a crisis of faith that they’re free to ask questions in the church is like telling a drowning person that they are free to grab onto the life preserver that no one is throwing to them. It is standing aside and watching someone drown all the while telling them that they should have seen the warning signs or turbulent water. Nevermind that the signs that were needed to avoid this crisis were long since buried in the sand of correlation.

 

no offense or anything but have these people ever had home and visiting teachers, friends, read books blogs, message boards etc. Some places and contexts are better suited to ask questions then others and certaintly who you ask is a factor (I would never ask Elder Yoshihiko Kikuchi, emeritus 70 how the Government in Ghana helped/hindered the Church but I might ask him how being a Temple and Mission Pres.is like, because he can speak to those questions

 

do these questions need to be asked in the Church building? don't these people speak outside?! Maybe correlation isn't such a bad thing after all if we are seeing how people are reacting to stuff they aren't handling (for example I was talking to a friend today for lunch, she is all worked up about this OW yet she didn't know anything about the Jaredites when I told her about Ether 12)

[Pahoran]

http://rationalfaiths.com/drowning-church/

 

From the article:

 

Telling someone who is in or has been through a crisis of faith that they’re free to ask questions in the church is like telling a drowning person that they are free to grab onto the life preserver that no one is throwing to them. It is standing aside and watching someone drown all the while telling them that they should have seen the warning signs or turbulent water. Nevermind that the signs that were needed to avoid this crisis were long since buried in the sand of correlation.

Rather hysterically overwrought, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

Rather hysterically overwrought, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

If it is, you are the man to identify as such.

[Pahoran]

If it is, you are the man to identify as such.

Thank you for that important, substantive contribution there, Seth.

And speaking of "irony," I suppose you're about to tell us that Pahoran always focuses on the messenger, and never on the message?

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

Rather hysterically overwrought, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, Kate Kelly has compared the disciplinary proceedings against her (consisting principally of written communications) to rape, her bishop to a rapist, and herself to a rape victim.

A sense of proportion is not Kate Kelly's strong suit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2015 by smac97

[Pahoran]

Well, Kate Kelly has compared the disciplinary proceedings against her (consisting principally of written communications) to rape, her bishop to a rapist, and herself to a rape.

A sense of proportion is not Kate Kelly's strong suit.

Thanks,

-Smac

True, but the essay Tacenda quoted wasn't from Kate. It was from someone who might be considered a "sympathiser."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Brian 2.0]

sure but we don't excommunicate people who lived in the past. We live in 2014 and whatever the current interpretation of policy, practice- Christ's doctrine doesn't change (the good news in 33ad still is the good news in 2014)

I think the point was that the church and the individual are held to different standards. The church can distance itself from past doctrines and encourage people to do the same, but members can't do the same thing. It's "concerning" when and individual does it, but welcomed when the church does it.

[Duncan]

I think the point was that the church and the individual are held to different standards. The church can distance itself from past doctrines and encourage people to do the same, but members can't do the same thing. It's "concerning" when and individual does it, but welcomed when the church does it.

 

well, KK knows that it isn't a doctrine or practice that women hold the priesthood so she is encouraging others to do something other then what is current. It seems history record is murky if women ever held priesthood authority

[Abulafia]

well, KK knows that it isn't a doctrine or practice that women hold the priesthood so she is encouraging others to do something other then what is current. It seems history record is murky if women ever held priesthood authority

Most Jewish men didn't hold priesthood authority historically.  It functioned in an entirely different way than it does in the LDS church today.They were paid, full time workers as I understand it.  They had no right to own land.  

There were charismatic leaders and prophets within Judaism (Vermes explains this in his recent work on early christianity) who rose separate from the priesthood. That would be unthinkable for the way the LDS church is organised.

Jesus didn't appear to have come from a priestly line.  Kingly line perhaps.  (line of David)

In that context women could be, and were leaders and Prophets.  Deborah, Miriam, the daughters of Philip, etc, etc.

Women could be deaconesses, baptizers, teachers, missionaries, apostles, bishops and house church leaders, in some of the early communities.  A deacon was a waiter or waitress, and the name reflects the earliest origins of the Eucharist as a communal meal where a prayer was given that was not set, and a full meal was partaken of.

 

Bishop has it's origin in the term overseer who probably had a function of guarding the common purse when the communities were communal (at least some of them).

 

Elders have their origin in Jewish practice and means those of old age and wisdom.  

Most of the structure of the earliest communities was a continuation of Jewish practice which was diverse and not orthodox.  Commonalities can be seen in the practice of both the Essenes and the Therapeutae.

So anyway, it's a misnomer to say that it's doubtful whether women held priesthood authority, because men didn't hold it either.  That didn't stop them from having office within Judaism, or within early christian communities.

 

[Rob Osborn]

A far as I know

I have to wonder just where heavenly father is in all this. I have read many people comment about how the church is changing from within about issues pertaining to females. And about how the conversation is becoming different, more inclusive. Is this heavenly father or the church or are they one and the same? Interestingly, now that some women are speaking out and  the church seems to be listening to what they are saying about calling for change, I am wondering just where our heavenly parents are in all this. For example, who is really listening, the church of human beings or heavenly father.

 

It would seem that if this is god's church it is god who is listening and instilling the changes. If so, what has changed his mind about women in his church. And I have to wonder just what the role of heavenly mother is in the conversation. Just questions that I have.

 

I asked these questions because it does seem that our heavenly parents are being ignored in the human converation about women and the church. I hardly ever hear of heavenly father being behind the changes with heavenly mother's support. It seems a very human conversation with mention of the church, as a building of people or as a generic term. For example, the statement by the church would have to come from heavenly father and yet there is hardly any discussion of his hand in it and why.

Its interesting that I refer to our Heavenly Parents quite often in many conversations both in the classrooom at church and here on the internet and in speaking to my friends and family in conversation. I am of the firm belief that a Husband and Wife in heaven counsel together and make a decision as "one head". The power of inspiration and revelation can and does come to all be they female or male, black or white, young or old- all are alike in this regards. The power of the priesthood is not this power though although it encompasses that gift. The power of the priesthood is the very "actions" carried out as a result of counseling, revelation, etc. For whatever reasons it be God has decreed that man and woman unite and form one head and that under this one head the priesthood power comes into full effect. It is true that in the temples of the church both male and female alike receive the powers of the priesthood both in their clothing and in knowing all of the proper signs, tokens, and powers given to those holding the priesthood. As for actual "ordination" I believe that this refers to a specific "office" and as such requires an ordination. Is it thus just a semantics issue? As far as I know there is no specific ordination done for the male in the temple. As far as I know, both the man and the woman receive the same initiatory being given the same cleansings, powers and authorities promised upon them to receive in the endowment. Then, in the endowment they all receive the same exact priesthood powers given to them.