Does Heavenly Mother Sustain Ow?

[Buckeye]

So she feels repressed by the violence inherent in God's system?

 

Surely she would not feel repressed in an earthly system which is presently incorrect?

 

Sometimes my jokes are not as clear as they should be. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[mfbukowski]

I think it's a safe bet that none of us in the earthly church have the "priesthood fully."  As one example, Elder Oaks said in the last conference that the church does not have keys to perform resurrections. 

OK that seems to make sense

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes my jokes are not as clear as they should be. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[stemelbow]

As it has been, people in this world have been oppressed by others. Based on race, religion, gender and many other things. I think those oppressed will be granted eternal blessings for having been stuck in a situation where oppression was a given.

Women will be blessed in a way we men will not all thanks to male superiority, often maintained in the name of tradition, truth or love, as feigned as it really is.

She very well might sustain the movement.

Edited August 15, 2014 by stemelbow

[mfbukowski]

I am just looking for some kind of theological position for OW that actually makes sense and is coherent with their program

 

It seems to me that they have not thought this through at all.

 

I am not sure how one can sustain the church AND support OW, I guess as they purport to do.  I am just looking for some kind- any kind- of coherent position, because as of now I don't see any.

[Senator]

It is my personal opinion that the constructs of the order of the priesthood that we are now under, which are in consequence of the fall, will someday be redeemed through the atonement of Christ, along with all other consequences of the fall.

[mfbukowski]

It is my personal opinion that the constructs of the order of the priesthood that we are now under, which are in consequence of the fall, will someday be redeemed through the atonement of Christ, along with all other consequences of the fall.

An interesting point.

 

So the present Priesthood is a human construct and does not correspond to eternal realities?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Does that mean in the next life we'll have to be ordained all over again, or does it mean we'll just have greater knowledge of the true priesthood?

[Senator]

An interesting point.

 

So the present Priesthood is a human construct and does not correspond to eternal realities?

No, It's of divine constrution. However, it's obvious that man has often misapproriated it throughout human history.

 

I highly question how the current construction corresponds to eternal realities.

[katherine the great]

 

 

I am not sure how one can sustain the church AND support OW, I guess as they purport to do.  I am just looking for some kind- any kind- of coherent position, because as of now I don't see any.

I do.  Although I don't align myself with OW, I think there is much room for improvement in the current church structure to include women more.  Women should have input on pretty much everything as we are more than 50% of the membership.  I love the church and I love the brethren, but there are times when I feel that women don't have the voice we deserve in the organization.  Radical groups have a purpose because they force us to look at issues that often remain unsaid or only whispered because of fear of authority or not wanting to be branded as heretical or pot stirrers. Women in the church can either be silent and accept, murmur against inequity or speak out.  I personally don't feel a need to be ordained to the priesthood.  I'm a little old fashioned that way, but I do admire this group because they have brought attention to something that maybe needed to be noticed-even if their methods were unorthodox and their message extreme.  The squeaky wheel and all.  And they are paying a hefty price.

[Buckeye]

I am not sure how one can sustain the church AND support OW, I guess as they purport to do.  I am just looking for some kind- any kind- of coherent position, because as of now I don't see any.

 

One avenue could be cafeteria-sustaining.  Just as their are cafeteria members who believe some, but not all, of the church teachings, there could be cafeteria members who sustain the church in missionary work, temple work, WOW, etc., but do not sustain the church's stance on OW.  Likewise, there could be members who support many things that OW does, such as general discussions of the importance of women in the church and the possibility of female ordination, but who do not support everything OW stands for, in particular the things the church has expressly frowned upon - the action (or protest) at general conference and the six OW discussions.

[Erin15]

Women should have input on pretty much everything as we are more than 50% of the membership. I feel that women don't have the voice we deserve in the organization.

Deserve?

That is an extremely entitled stance to take, especially in a church where we are supposed to submit to His will.

Doesn't it bother you that you are basically saying "not thy will, but mine?"

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[Senator]

Deserve?

That is an extremely entitled stance to take, especially in a church where we are supposed to submit to His will.

Doesn't it bother you that you are basically saying "not thy will, but mine?"

I understand why you conflate "thy will" with the status quo of the church. However, it is unnecessary to assume that.

 

There may be actual things that are not right in the church.

[katherine the great]

Deserve?

That is an extremely entitled stance to take, especially in a church where we are supposed to submit to His will.

Doesn't it bother you that you are basically saying "not thy will, but mine?"

You don't think that women deserve a voice?  If people should not have a say then why discuss anything at all?  The Prophet, through revelation would just make all the rules.  Why would he need counselors?  Why do we need committees in the church?  Why does the church send out surveys to the membership?  Because church leaders CARE about what the members think.  

[mfbukowski]

One avenue could be cafeteria-sustaining.  Just as their are cafeteria members who believe some, but not all, of the church teachings, there could be cafeteria members who sustain the church in missionary work, temple work, WOW, etc., but do not sustain the church's stance on OW.  Likewise, there could be members who support many things that OW does, such as general discussions of the importance of women in the church and the possibility of female ordination, but who do not support everything OW stands for, in particular the things the church has expressly frowned upon - the action (or protest) at general conference and the six OW discussions.

I mean have a theological understanding consistent with both sustaining "the church" AND believing that Heavenly Mother has the Priesthood - it seems to me they would have to sustain all three of these ideas at once, and I don't see how that can be managed.

 

1-The church is "true", and being excommunicated is a great tragedy

2-Heavenly Mother has the Priesthood

3-Women in the church do not have the Priesthood

 

It would seem to me they would have at least to explain their position on a consistent path that gets around all three points at once.  I don't see that.

 

If I were to believe that the church got it so badly wrong that though Heavenly Mother has the Priesthood, women do not- I would not find my church membership valuable enough to see it as a "tragedy" that I was excommunicated.

 

It would be just another thing the church got wrong, like perhaps the Trinity, or whatever else one believes which is inconsistent with church beliefs.   Am I seeing it wrong?

[mfbukowski]

No, It's of divine constrution. However, it's obvious that man has often misapproriated it throughout human history.

 

I highly question how the current construction corresponds to eternal realities.

How would we know what those realities were so we could adjust it properly?

[Erin15]

You don't think that women deserve a voice?

Deserve?

No, absolutely not.

He listens to us and commands His servants to listen because He loves us, but at no point do we deserve anything.

We are, and always will be, unprofitable servants, forever in His debt.

Deserve and entitlement have no place in His church.

Here, we are all servants. We serve Him in the manner and time He calls us to.

After everything Jesus did for us, I don't think it is too much for him to ask of us.

This is not our church, it is His church.

[mfbukowski]

I do.  Although I don't align myself with OW, I think there is much room for improvement in the current church structure to include women more.  Women should have input on pretty much everything as we are more than 50% of the membership.  I love the church and I love the brethren, but there are times when I feel that women don't have the voice we deserve in the organization.  Radical groups have a purpose because they force us to look at issues that often remain unsaid or only whispered because of fear of authority or not wanting to be branded as heretical or pot stirrers. Women in the church can either be silent and accept, murmur against inequity or speak out.  I personally don't feel a need to be ordained to the priesthood.  I'm a little old fashioned that way, but I do admire this group because they have brought attention to something that maybe needed to be noticed-even if their methods were unorthodox and their message extreme.  The squeaky wheel and all.  And they are paying a hefty price.

But I agree with you!

 

There is much we need to learn about the Priesthood of women- no question in my mind, but that is not what OW is saying.

 

The name of the organization is "Ordain Women".  If you do not believe that women need to be ordained, you do not accept their position.

 

I just think their position is inconsistent- and therefore not even worth considering- that women should in fact be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.   I share Sharon Eubanks view that couples make a "Divine Pair" and share the priesthood between both of them, but there is only need to ordain the man.  In the temple, women already receive superior blessings to men, and to make them "equal" would demean women.  We are hampered in discussing that outside the temple, but if you are familiar with the ordinances, it is a fact.  Men effectively have to "earn" much more than women do to achieve exaltation, through their faithfulness whereas women just receive those blessings directly, not "through their faithfulness".  You just have them handed to you because you are a woman! 

 

So what is their consistent theological position on all this?  I don't think there is one!!  They have not even thought through what they want and how that works with the present church framework.

 

So change the framework?  OK, but then why worry about being excommunicated if the framework itself is corrupt?  If the Presbyterian church wants to excommunicate me, no problem.  I am an excommunicated Catholic, de facto.  No problem.  I don't believe that anyway so I don't care. I think THEY are wrong and I am right.

 

They are saying the church is "kinda right" and "kinda wrong" at the same time without explaining themselves.  They have no theological position on how all this might work.

 

So why do they care?

[katherine the great]

Deserve?

No, absolutely not.

He listens to us and commands His servants to listen because He loves us, but at no point do we deserve anything.

We are, and always will be, unprofitable servants, forever in His debt.

Deserve and entitlement have no place in His church.

Here, we are all servants. We serve Him in the manner and time He calls us to.

After everything Jesus did for us, I don't think it is too much for him to ask of us.

This is not our church, it is His church.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[mfbukowski]

I understand why you conflate "thy will" with the status quo of the church. However, it is unnecessary to assume that.

 

There may be actual things that are not right in the church.

Again, how would we know? Who is it who is supposed to tell us that?  Isn't that making yourself the prophet?

 

Again, to me it amounts to "vote with your feet". 

Edited August 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

OW consists of faithful members, nonmembers including those who belong to other faith positions, and excommunicated members and even those who have described themselves atheists.

I am not sure how they could have a coherent theological position given that.

[katherine the great]

But I agree with you!

 

There is much we need to learn about the Priesthood of women- no question in my mind, but that is not what OW is saying.

 

The name of the organization is "Ordain Women".  If you do not believe that women need to be ordained, you do not accept their position.

 

 

I do not accept their position.  I do recognize the importance of opposition because positive change can and often is the result.  I view most "radical" and extreme viewpoints this way (with the exception of terrorist groups.)  I view them as necessary even though I'm a generally moderate person.

[mfbukowski]

So can anyone even imagine a consistent theological position for OW that makes Heavenly Mother and advocate of OW?

[mfbukowski]

OW consists of faithful members, nonmembers including those who belong to other faith positions, and excommunicated members and even those who have described themselves atheists.

I am not sure how they could have a coherent theological position given that.

OK that shows how closely I have followed this.

 

And they are seeking support from faithful LDS women.   Good luck.  But maybe there are some who are sympathetic?

 

I was talking last week with a young woman TBM relative of mine who lives in SLC and is a college student, about how she feels ostracized because she does not stand up for OW, but like you and me for that matter, would like to see all this better defined.  I told her about the Eubanks talk and she was very excited.

 

I am just wondering how it is possible that so few can intimidate so many faithful women who feel they cannot speak out against OW.  That is how she felt.

[katherine the great]

 

I was talking last week with a young woman TBM relative of mine who lives in SLC and is a college student, about how she feels ostracized because she does not stand up for OW, but like you and me for that matter, would like to see all this better defined.  I told her about the Eubanks talk and she was very excited.

 

 

This is part of the issue I see.  College aged girls are growing up in a very different world than we grew up in.  They are used to absolute equality of opportunity between the sexes.  They are used to women being included in every level of administration in schooling, business, politics, foreign policy--places that traditionally have been men's territory.  This potentially will be an issue that is going to be difficult for them to accept.  I worry sometimes that the inherent "patriarchy" of the church is going to result in the loss of many of our daughters and granddaughters.