Does Heavenly Mother Sustain Ow?

[mfbukowski]

Can someone say the following?

"I believe this is God's church on Earth, but since it's run by imperfect people seeing through the glass darkly, the church isn't perfect. There are some thing I don't believe are run as Christ would run it if He were here. I believe women and the Priesthood is one of those things."

I feel like you are creating a false dichotomy.

Yay!  You get the cigar- at last someone has expressed an opinion on the OP!

 

OK fair enough, let's follow that through.

 

I would agree that we still don't have enough "light and knowledge" but are moving toward that.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64050-sharon-eubanks-talk-quoted-on-church-newsroom/

 

But now let's pretend that you are a supporter of actually ordaining women to the Priesthood.  THAT is what distinguishes OW from Sister Eubank's position above. 

 

We are now not talking about making some changes in the way we see women in the church- we are talking about actually ordaining them, presumably to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  (Perhaps it could be revealed that there was a "Priestesshood" just for women, but I think the above talk already has set the course in a different direction)

 

If we should ordain women to the Melchizedek Priesthood, would Heavenly Mother approve?

 

Does she hold that Priesthood?  Why don't we know anything about that?  Has she been oppressed by the patriarchy of her Husband?

 

What are we going to do about the Proclamation on the family and the idea that gender is an intrinsic part of our intelligences?  Do we hold those ideas as independent of the Priesthood ?

 

If Heavenly Mother has been actually oppressed by her Husband, how do we resolve such a basic issue with the church being "true"?  How could God be an abusive husband?

 

And why, as a woman would you still want to be a part of a church which worships a God who abuses his wife?

 

My point is, that there needs to be an entire doctrinal "back story" to explain how the error was made in the first place, that women have not had the priesthood since time began.

 

What has changed that would allow such a thing?  How could it be justified?

 

It seems to me that OW has not even examined the question much less supplied answers.

[mfbukowski]

So there are NO faithful OW members?

Butting in, I am sure there are, but I am trying desperately to comprehend how they justify the cognitive dissonance between believing that God is an oppressive husband and yet the church is worth the effort to do what defines a "faithful member"

 

I am really just asking the question.  To me it seems inconsistent and I am just looking for a story to make their path consistent, that's all- even if I don't accept that story.

 

I would not be a member of a church which believed that God was an abusive husband, and I see that as an inevitable conclusion to believing that women should have the Priesthood, because presumably Heavenly Mother does not have it either.

 

If she does, and we do not know that, that in itself, I would think would also be a reason to disregard the church as a God ordained "true path", to have gotten such a basic issue wrong for all eternity so far.

[sethpayne]

Butting in, I am sure there are, but I am trying desperately to comprehend how they justify the cognitive dissonance between believing that God is an oppressive husband and yet the church is worth the effort to do what defines a "faithful member"

 

I am really just asking the question.  To me it seems inconsistent and I am just looking for a story to make their path consistent, that's all- even if I don't accept that story.

 

I would not be a member of a church which believed that God was an abusive husband, and I see that as an inevitable conclusion to believing that women should have the Priesthood, because presumably Heavenly Mother does not have it either.

 

If she does, and we do not know that, that in itself, I would think would also be a reason to disregard the church as a God ordained "true path", to have gotten such a basic issue wrong for all eternity so far.

 

You are assuming too much about OW supporters.  I'll use myself as an example.  I am sympathetic to OW and I think they raise some very interesting points worthy of discussion.  There are, however, positions the organization has taken that I do not agree with.   Am I an OW supporter?  In many ways, yes.  But I don't walk lock-step.  Similar to my chosen political party.  I support much, but certainly not all, of the party's platform.

 

So what I'm saying, I suppose, is that some OW supporters get behind much/some of the goals/tactics of OW but not all.  I know several women who fit in this category.  

[mfbukowski]

You are assuming too much about OW supporters.  I'll use myself as an example.  I am sympathetic to OW and I think they raise some very interesting points worthy of discussion.  There are, however, positions the organization has taken that I do not agree with.   Am I an OW supporter?  In many ways, yes.  But I don't walk lock-step.  Similar to my chosen political party.  I support much, but certainly not all, of the party's platform.

 

So what I'm saying, I suppose, is that some OW supporters get behind much/some of the goals/tactics of OW but not all.  I know several women who fit in this category.  

My point is simply that it seems to me that no one has thought through the implications of giving women the Priesthood, especially those who want it most.

 

Maybe I am a Mormon who is sympathetic with the idea of reincarnation,  Maybe I agitate that the brethren start preaching reincarnation, without realizing that it appears to be incompatible with a "one time around" plan of salvation

 

I guess I am just overly interested in keeping at least some semblance of consistency  in my world view.  I just dont get it.

[sethpayne]

My point is simply that it seems to me that no one has thought through the implications of giving women the Priesthood, especially those who want it most.

 

Maybe I am a Mormon who is sympathetic with the idea of reincarnation,  Maybe I agitate that the brethren start preaching reincarnation, without realizing that it appears to be incompatible with a "one time around" plan of salvation

 

I guess I am just overly interested in keeping at least some semblance of consistency  in my world view.  I just dont get it.

 

But wouldn't you agree that endowed women already have the priesthood?  It can't be given to them because they already have it -- as Elder Oaks talked about last April.

 

So now we are getting into questions of practical theology.  Some OW folks I know simply want to discuss how women can express and use their priesthood -- outside the context of men.  That's not to say that men and women don't hold the priesthood *jointly*, but it does raise the question of why men can *exercise* priesthood without their wives and yet today, women can only exercise their priesthood under the direct supervision of men (in the temple, etc...)

 

So I think people can disagree about the question of ordination, specifically, but I do see the idea of women blessing each other and their children to be both historically supported, and consistent with scripture.  

[mfbukowski]

But wouldn't you agree that endowed women already have the priesthood?  It can't be given to them because they already have it -- as Elder Oaks talked about last April.

 

So now we are getting into questions of practical theology.  Some OW folks I know simply want to discuss how women can express and use their priesthood -- outside the context of men.  That's not to say that men and women don't hold the priesthood *jointly*, but it does raise the question of why men can *exercise* priesthood without their wives and yet today, women can only exercise their priesthood under the direct supervision of men (in the temple, etc...)

 

So I think people can disagree about the question of ordination, specifically, but I do see the idea of women blessing each other and their children to be both historically supported, and consistent with scripture.  

We agree completely on that one.  I have no problem with women blessing people as was done in the early church, and yes I agree that endowed women already have the priesthood. I do not think that women should be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, though the Lord may reveal that women have another kind of priesthood of their own.  But that is speculation completely.

 

But I am still not understanding how OW proposes to solve the problem of Heavenly Mother and if she feels oppressed by patriarchy or not.

 

No one else seems to have a feel for that either.

[Brian 2.0]

But I am still not understanding how OW proposes to solve the problem of Heavenly Mother and if she feels oppressed by patriarchy or not.

No one else seems to have a feel for that either.

I would think OW followers do not feel Heavenly Mother feels oppressed by patriarchy.

I also think they would say that whatever the organization and arrangement of priesthood and women in heaven, it is different from what we have currently in church organization. They would say the current organization has remnants of sexist thought and feelings from the past which was common in those times, and they feel those points are not of God and do not exist in heaven where Heavenly Mother, they assume, has more of a role than current women in the church have.

[sethpayne]

I would think OW followers do not feel Heavenly Mother feels oppressed by patriarchy.

I also think they would say that whatever the organization and arrangement of priesthood and women in heaven, it is different from what we have currently in church organization. They would say the current organization has remnants of sexist thought and feelings from the past which was common in those times, and they feel those points are not of God and do not exist in heaven where Heavenly Mother, they assume, has more of a role than current women in the church have.

 

I think this is spot on.

[Calm]

We agree completely on that one.  I have no problem with women blessing people as was done in the early church, and yes I agree that endowed women already have the priesthood. I do not think that women should be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, though the Lord may reveal that women have another kind of priesthood of their own.  But that is speculation completely.

 

But I am still not understanding how OW proposes to solve the problem of Heavenly Mother and if she feels oppressed by patriarchy or not.

 

No one else seems to have a feel for that either.

Have you read their 6discussions/conversations? I think that is likely to give the most coherent picture of their beliefs if there is one. They are online at their website. I admit I could not read all of them, the first one came across as a total farce to me. Undoubtedly that coloured my reaction to the rest.

[mfbukowski]

I would think OW followers do not feel Heavenly Mother feels oppressed by patriarchy.

I also think they would say that whatever the organization and arrangement of priesthood and women in heaven, it is different from what we have currently in church organization. They would say the current organization has remnants of sexist thought and feelings from the past which was common in those times, and they feel those points are not of God and do not exist in heaven where Heavenly Mother, they assume, has more of a role than current women in the church have.

So patriarchy is OK as long as it is not "oppressive"?  Does Father "preside" in this objective heavenly order which no one has ever gotten right?

 

And what then is the Priesthood?  The authority and  power of "God" including Heavenly Mother?  Is the term "God" understood as sexist?

 

And is it "really" (in this hypothetical objective heavenly order that no one in history as gotten right) The "Melchizedek" priesthood or is it misnamed because it is named after a man?  Is it the Holy Order after the Son of God- or would it include Daughters in its title as well?

 

Was Christ really the High Priest of the sacrifice in the New Testament?  Was that proper because it did not include women?

 

Since they were protesting excommunication, KK wanted to stay in the church.  So prophets must have gotten some of it "right", but yet she understands the correct heavenly order better than the prophets?

 

I know you don't know the answers here, and I appreciate the effort, I just want to point out some doctrinal questions that I think have not been thought through entirely.

 

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Do you think KK could answer these questions?

 

These are all questions I would honestly have if the church gave women the priesthood tomorrow.  To me it re-defines not only the role of Heavenly Mother but the priesthood itself, but there are no definitions to replace what would be taken away.

[mfbukowski]

Have you read their 6discussions/conversations? I think that is likely to give the most coherent picture of their beliefs if there is one. They are online at their website. I admit I could not read all of them, the first one came across as a total farce to me. Undoubtedly that coloured my reaction to the rest.

Well you caught me I guess- no I have not read them.  I will do so.

[Tacenda]

So there are NO faithful OW members?

Yes, he better think again on that one.

[Tacenda]

Well you caught me I guess- no I have not read them. I will do so.

Well, well, well...an honest admission, I don't think you're alone in that response. Also, if you care to listen, it's the "N.O.W.17 Marion" podcast. There's a sister there that you may even like. She just joined OW, she's from Norway. 

 

I wish OW would change their name, as Why Me has suggested. Not all of them want ordination exactly as men have it. Women truly were ordained or going to be at the time the RS got started. I think that's what most want just a little authority to speak and act like once was. Then it all got pulled when Emma started on a rant against polygamy. And was treated like a child, IMO, for her actions and RS was no more for several years.

One podcast on FMH has one Stake's RS doing some amazing service, I'd have to go back and listen. But it was in the early days in a settlement in Sanpete County. Back before RS got correlated or corralled. I'll link these when I'm able. These women are not all like KK.

 

ETA:  http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/n-o-w-17-marion/  The latest joiner, Marion.

 

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/year-of-polygamy-a-brief-history-of-relief-society-episode-46/  This time period probably had some of my relatives in it.  I think it's the one with the amazing RS service spoken about.  Not that we need that now, but I'm thinking the floodgates might be open a bit to some things that could do even more good, if God would allow, not saying what the RS does now isn't enough mind you, I've been in two RS presidencies. 

 

Forgotten Relief Societies 1844-67 by Richard Jensen  This is an eye opener, tells it like it was...

Edited August 17, 2014 by Tacenda

[Senator]

Well if and when we need that, it will come through priesthood channels I imagine.

 

We have a little epistemological problem here suggesting that the church does not correspond to eternal reality when the only way we can glimpse eternal reality is through the church, I suppose.

 

Unless you have another way that God is telling you, and then you don't need the church.  Which is it?

 

So I am just looking to the solution to the problem you have proposed.   Of course to me, the problem does not exist, because my position does not rely on a correspondence theory of truth.  We have discussed this before of course.  I am just wondering how you solve your own problem with this, how you know what the eternal realities ARE to show that they do not correspond to church teachings.  I sustain the church as the best path to God that mankind knows.  Of course some changes might be in order, but that is what an open canon is for.  We can seek further light and knowledge.

 

I suppose you might claim that you already have it, and the church needs to catch up.   Maybe OW also thinks they receive revelation for the church, I don't know.  But then why do they value their membership in an apostate church?  Why do you value your membership in an apostate church if that is what you believe?

 

To me, this view is a mass of confusion, to coin a phrase.

 

I am just trying to get people to think through these positions they take and at least come up with something that makes sense, and stick to one story.

 

I do not support OW, but I am interested in the possible role they may be playing in the development of the the church. So perhaps my injection here was misplaced, as I cannot speak to their justifications to their ideologies.

 

Yes, I believe that the eternal realities are so far advanced of our own present state, such that the eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,the things which God has prepared for those that love him.

 

You created a false dillema in your question, "I suppose you might claim that you already have it, and the church needs to catch up. Why do you value your membership in an apostate church if that is what you believe?" Does my acknowledgement that the church is still immature, that we are still in a state of looking through the glass darkly, mean that it is in a state of apostacy? No, not at all.

[Senator]

That is what it means to be a disciple. Not my will, but Thine.

 

I'm assuming you've received your temple endowments?

 

If your above statement is all that their is to being a disciple, then why would God ever ask us what is wanted?

[rodheadlee]

Can someone say the following?

"I believe this is God's church on Earth, but since it's run by imperfect people seeing through the glass darkly, the church isn't perfect. There are some thing I don't believe are run as Christ would run it if He were here. I believe women and the Priesthood is one of those things."

I feel like you are creating a false dichotomy.

He was here in the 1820-30s when He re-started His Church and the priesthood. Why didn't He give women the priesthood at this time? or even give the keys to do so at a later date? 

[Tacenda]

He was here in the 1820-30s when He re-started His Church and the priesthood. Why didn't He give women the priesthood at this time? or even give the keys to do so at a later date? 

Well some say He did.  And do we have the men's PH established date?  I don't think we do.  No date written specifically, just as the women's is vague so can the men's be.  ETA:  Oh, I guess we do...May 15, 1829, it was the Melchizedek priesthood that we don't have a definite date. Also, I read this passage from Margaret Toscano, she talks about women's ordination by JS.  Interesting read for sure....http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=4442

Edited August 17, 2014 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

Not such much oppressed as repressed .... by the violence inherent in the system. 

 

To get a sense for just how upside-down is the world's thinking, note as one example how the sycophants of pop culture mis-characterize as "oppressive" or "repressive" an organization whose fundamental purpose, among several things, is to enable women to reach the zenith of their progression--i.e. Goddess/Mother. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 17, 2014 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Have you read their 6discussions/conversations? I think that is likely to give the most coherent picture of their beliefs if there is one. They are online at their website. I admit I could not read all of them, the first one came across as a total farce to me. Undoubtedly that coloured my reaction to the rest.

Well maybe I should just quit discussing it.  They are so bad I can't even take them seriously enough to get through or critique.

 

If you define patriarchy from the beginning as being repressive, then conclude that patriarchy is repressive, it's not too good of an argument.

Edited August 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

That is exactly the kind of thinking that lead KK out of the kingdom.

No, we don't get a vote in how He runs His church. We submit patiently to Him and serve Him in the way He asks us to and in the place He asks us to.

That is what it means to be a disciple. Not my will, but Thine.

 

You are so right. Satan is leading those women to hellish places.  Hot ones, too.  You strike me as a very patient person, Erin.

[Stone holm]

Given we know next to nothing about her or them, how could we hazard a guess? At least the Jews said that Lilith's downfall had to do with refusal to submit to Adam's dominance.

[BlueDreams]

You are so right. Satan is leading those women to hellish places.  Hot ones, too.  You strike me as a very patient person, Erin.

 

Florida? Or maybe you're talking about Houston. Either way I'm glad none of us are being led down there at this time of year.

[Calm]

Well maybe I should just quit discussing it.  They are so bad I can't even take them seriously enough to get through or critique.

Some day I may feel the need to grit my teeth and get through them, but since when I criticize OW I criticize their behaviour so far, I don't fell the need yet.

[mfbukowski]

Some day I may feel the need to grit my teeth and get through them, but since when I criticize OW I criticize their behaviour so far, I don't fell the need yet.

Agreed.

 

But I saw nothing that even came close to any theological understanding of patriarchy whatsoever much less answering the questions I am asking, so my guilt is assuaged. 

[juliann]

Ok.  for a while you had me going.  Well done.

 

 

 

 It's been so long since we were allowed to play with a troll.

 

I have to admit Erin is the best one I have ever seen.  It is rare that they can restrain themselves for more than a few weeks. Masterful. Truly.