Temple Recommend And Ordain Women Supporters

[rockpond]

My apologies, but I've read this question at least half a dozen times now, and I still have no clue what you are asking.

 

My question was this... In my experience, MS listeners who leave most often do so because the narrative they have discovered prior to listening to MS differs from the narrative they were taught in the church.  That conflict is often too much for them to resolve or they decide that the Church's side is incorrect.

 

So my question is:  Does the Church bear any responsibility for the narrative that they chose to teach or is it only Dehlin's fault for helping to publicize a narrative that disagrees with the Church's narrative?

[rockpond]

I find it to be a very confusing question also, even without the conundrum of trying to non-figuratively compare the Church and an individual. I usually stay out of topics that discuss publicized Church discipline because it isn’t my purview to judge those facing discipline or to take sides in their case.

However, the question of whether to blame the Church for the data contained within her narrative presupposes that data/narrative is fictional, flawed or wrong and that therefore the central message is sufficiently compromised so as create a crisis of faith “concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion”. That makes the question very confusing, for me.

 

I apologize for my confusing question.  I just responded (see above) in an effort to clarify.

 

The narrative is how the Church gets the very authority to both teach about Christ and excommunicate someone like Kate Kelly who still believes that Christ died, rose again, and all other things which pertain to our religion.  So the narrative cannot be so easily dismissed.

 

At any rate, the central message (“...the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” -- Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121) is delivered by flawed human beings, but this is exactly how the Lord structured His doctrine (as in 3 Nephi 11). Using servants is a specific doctrinal point.

 

But the Church doesn't seem to be willing to actually admit that those apostles and prophets are flawed.  Instead, the procedure seems to be to marginalize anyone who dares to suggest that they might be mistaken about something.

[revelstoked]

My question was this... In my experience, MS listeners who leave most often do so because the narrative they have discovered prior to listening to MS differs from the narrative they were taught in the church.  That conflict is often too much for them to resolve or they decide that the Church's side is incorrect.

 

So my question is:  Does the Church bear any responsibility for the narrative that they chose to teach or is it only Dehlin's fault for helping to publicize a narrative that disagrees with the Church's narrative?

 

There is also in my experience the narrative created by the church culture and not the "church logotype books" that causes most of these differing narratives.  It is very rare that a direct statement will be made about these "faith promoting rumors" and other ultimately false teachings that arise from the culture (like the "hush" story for Gordon B Hinckley).  Sometimes there is stuff taught "in" the church that isn't taught "by" the Church.  

 

I always keep in mind when listening to these conflicts that everyone is flawed.  The people telling the stories, the people reacting to the stories, the people judging the other people, the people opposing the Church, the people supporting the Church, the people running the Church.  And each one of them still has a duty to themselves, friends, family, and the church as a whole.  As long as they are doing their best with honest and sincere intent I find it hard to castigate them and rake them over the coals.  But that's the problem, in some of these instances we do have to make judgements about some of these peoples intent, and occasionally we ourselves are wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

My question was this... In my experience, MS listeners who leave most often do so because the narrative they have discovered prior to listening to MS differs from the narrative they were taught in the church.  That conflict is often too much for them to resolve or they decide that the Church's side is incorrect.

 

So my question is:  Does the Church bear any responsibility for the narrative that they chose to teach or is it only Dehlin's fault for helping to publicize a narrative that disagrees with the Church's narrative?

The Church does have a responsibility to try to teach true and correct principles and build God's kingdom here on earth. But, this does not mean that if and when the Church gets something wrong that its members can pick apart the church in an antagonistic and demeaning manner and still retain membership and good standing with the church.

There are certain areas where I honestly believe the Church has got some doctrines wrong. And, as such, I will have to ask the Church in regards for clarification which IS THEIR RIGHT to give me and the rest of the church if it needs changing. There is a process for clarifying doctrine and receiving answers but it has to go through the right channels of the church leadership which basically begin at the ward and stake level.

[rockpond]

The Church does have a responsibility to try to teach true and correct principles and build God's kingdom here on earth. 

There are certain areas where I honestly believe the Church has got some doctrines wrong. 

 

Well, we agree on these two points.

[rockpond]

There is also in my experience the narrative created by the church culture and not the "church logotype books" that causes most of these differing narratives.  It is very rare that a direct statement will be made about these "faith promoting rumors" and other ultimately false teachings that arise from the culture (like the "hush" story for Gordon B Hinckley).  Sometimes there is stuff taught "in" the church that isn't taught "by" the Church. 

 

When I talk about the narrative, I'm not talking about church cultural stuff (though I agree that's a problem).  I'm more referring to the types of things that the Church is now working to address through the Gospel Topics pages.

[ksfisher]

Priests are authorized to baptize per D/C 20. However, to perform temple ordinances, including baptisms, one must be an Elder.

 

To perform baptisms for the dead one needs to be endowed as well as being an elder.

[JLHPROF]

Healing of the sick by anointing with oil and laying on of hands by Women in a Priesthood capacity is present all throughout both Old & New Testament.

No it's not.  You can claim it is, but laying on of hands in a priesthood capacity is NEVER recorded as practiced by women.  Healing and anointing is, priesthood authority isn't.  You can't just make things up.

 

 

I don't have to Joseph Smith did.

From the minutes of the 1st Relief Society Meeting when it was organized.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=5

Joseph Smith said

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers &c. are among us.

The reason the Womens organizations got the Names they did was because Emma voiced her opinion and gave them different names. But Joseph Smiths intentions are quite clear.

 

Another classic misinterpretation.  Joseph said that if officers are needed for the Relief Society let them be set apart in the same way Deacons are set apart - to their particular calling.  It still mentions NOTHING about priesthood.  Why do you insist on placing priesthood office where none has ever or should ever exist?  And as for the names I referred to - Beehives, Laurels etc are not quorums.  And Emma didn't name them.

 

 

Per church policy only. There's quite a few females present in Da Vinci's[sic] Last Supper depiction ya know.

 

Don't recall DaVinci being an eyewitness.  His adding females is not history.

 

 

Joseph Smith Intentions to have the Women's organizations divided up as Quorums of Deacons, Teachers and Priests is quite Clear. And since Pahoran brought up the fact that "Ordain" and "Set Apart" were used quite interchangeable in Joseph Smiths times, a case can be made that Joseph Smith was saying that the women should be "Ordained" to the office of "Deacons, Teachers, and Priests".

The wording he uses is "Appointed (IE Ordained) AND set apart". His intentions are explicitly clear, not merely being "set apart" in a Presidency capacity as is the Church policy today. His intention was "Ordination" and "Setting Apart" to a Priesthood Office of Deacon, Teacher, and Priest etc. etc. etc.

 

Set apart is NOT ordained.  You keep saying it is, but it isn't.  There is NO record anywhere in the history of the gospel of a woman being ordained to a priesthood office (outside of the temple).  Joseph did NOT say that women should be Deacons, Teachers and Priests.  He said that the Relief Society could have officers set apart like the priesthood quorums do, not given priesthood authority.  Your argument doesn't hold any water.  Joseph never ordained any woman to any priesthood office ever (except in the temple) and there was nothing stopping him doing so.

I'd like to hear your explanation for that.

 

 

Blessing the Sacrament you might have a point. However, the only reason I can think of not to have Miamaids(Teachers) and Behives(Deacons) passing Sacrament and collecting Fast Offerings is male eccentricity.

 

I disagree on passing the sacrament (but then I don't think the Deacons should be doing it either).  I disagree on fast offering because the collection of fast offerings and tithes is the purview of the Bishop and his quorums in the Aaronic Priesthood.  Abraham paid tithes to Melchezidek, not to anyone else.

 

In the end your arguments would work in theory but precedent IS their undoing.  If the ecclesiastical priesthood could be given to women it would have been somewhere (and don't give me Junia and Phoebe since we know there are issues with those examples).  God has never directed a prophet to ordain a woman to the priesthood in the written records of the world.  Until he does it can't be done and your theories overstep their bounds.

 

The temple is an entirely different situation...

[Zakuska]

No it's not.  You can claim it is, but laying on of hands in a priesthood capacity is NEVER recorded as practiced by women.  Healing and anointing is, priesthood authority isn't.  You can't just make things up.

And just who's Authority are all these women in the scripture healing and anointing with oil by? Belzabub's?

I can see your point though. That's probably why President McKay (IIRC) had his Daughter do the Anointing and he did the sealing.

 

Another classic misinterpretation.  Joseph said that if officers are needed for the Relief Society let them be set apart in the same way Deacons are set apart - to their particular calling.  It still mentions NOTHING about priesthood.  Why do you insist on placing priesthood office where none has ever or should ever exist?  And as for the names I referred to - Beehives, Laurels etc are not quorums.  And Emma didn't name them.

I'll give you a point there. His use of the word "AS" does water down my argument here substantially.

 

Don't recall DaVinci being an eyewitness.  His adding females is not history.

Its pretty safe to say that women were indeed present at the last supper, because Christ explicitly tells two of his Disciples to go ahead and prepare the meal. In Jewish Culture of the day Women prepared and served the meals, Much like the USA in my Moms and Dad days. Mary and Martha would be my guess. They often prepared meals for Christ. Remember the jeaoluse spat between the two when Christ repremanded Martha because she was mad because she was doing all the work and Mary wasn't pulling her weight?

There's a good read here on the subject:

Who attended the Last Supper?

Asserting that only twelve male apostles attended the Last Supper when Jesus instituted Holy Orders, church leaders only permit men to be ordained. However, although Jesus also instituted the sacrament of Eucharist at the Last Supper, church leaders do not restrict Eucharist to only men nor only apostles. Why the inconsistency?

Regardless, since church leaders believe Last Supper attendees’ gender justifies excluding people from a sacrament, it is important to understand who actually attended.

Mark’s gospel indicates Jesus asked two disciples to prepare the Passover meal and then Jesus “came with the Twelve” (Mark 14:13-17). According to Mark’s gospel, at least fifteen people attended the Last Supper: Jesus, two disciples and “the Twelve”. Since Jesus had male and female disciples, and since meal preparation was a traditionally female role, the two disciples attending the Last Supper easily could have been women.

Matthew’s gospel indicates disciples prepared the Last Supper (MT 26:17-19). It does indicate “the Twelve” attended but it does not indicate only “the Twelve” attended. In the Eucharist institution narrative, Jesus takes the bread and cup, blesses them and distributes them to the disciples. During the Holy Order’s institution narrative, Jesus also tells disciples to, “Do this in memory of me”. Since Matthew’s gospel specifies disciples, it also offers the possibility for female attendees.

Luke’s gospel mentions apostles attending, but it does not mention the number twelve nor indicate that only apostles attended. John’s gospel indicates disciples attended (John 13:5). Therefore, both accounts permit the possibility for female attendees also.

About eight years before Mark wrote the earliest gospel, Paul first wrote a scriptural Last Supper account in 1 Cor 11. Pope John Paul II cited 1 Cor 11:24 in Mulieris Dignitatem, using this passage to justify excluding women from the priesthood. However, Paul does not mention who attended the Last Supper at all, much less their gender.

Paul and the four gospel authors had closer connections to the Last Supper than today’s church leaders, yet they inconsistently described its attendees. Why do current church leaders insert attendee gender assumptions with such certitude as to use them to exclude?

...snip...

http://questionsfromaewe.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-attended-last-supper.html

 

Go ahead and read the whole thing. I really agree with the woman. And this whole thing of dividing into who has the priesthood and who doesn't along Gender lines does seem a bit petty when you think about it. In Christ there is Neither Male NOR Female, bond or free. etc. etc. etc.

We should all just admit that we all have the Priesthood as believers in Christ.

Set apart is NOT ordained.  You keep saying it is, but it isn't.

So you diagree with Pahoran that "set apart" and "ordain" In Joseph Smith Parlance where quit often interchanged?

 

There is NO record anywhere in the history of the gospel of a woman being ordained to a priesthood office (outside of the temple).

I seem to remember at least 2 Old testament women who filled "Priestly" roles when no worthy Male Priests could be found.

 

Joseph did NOT say that women should be Deacons, Teachers and Priests.  He said that the Relief Society could have officers set apart like the priesthood quorums do, not given priesthood authority.

Already conceded.

Your argument doesn't hold any water.  Joseph never ordained any woman to any priesthood office ever (except in the temple) and there was nothing stopping him doing so.

I'd like to hear your explanation for that.

I haven't fleshed out that part of the argument yet. Still gathering Evidence, and after you knocked out my first argument I'm beginning to wonder if I should even try.

  

I disagree on passing the sacrament (but then I don't think the Deacons should be doing it either).  I disagree on fast offering because the collection of fast offerings and tithes is the purview of the Bishop and his quorums in the Aaronic Priesthood.  Abraham paid tithes to Melchezidek, not to anyone else.

You did know there is an ancient tradition that Melchezidek was a female? Right?

Regardless, you think it was Abraham that carried every golden coin directly to Melchezidek and Melchezidek then cast it into the treasury for him? Abraham's and Melq.'s men didn't help lug the treasure chests in?

 

In the end your arguments would work in theory but precedent IS their undoing.  If the ecclesiastical priesthood could be given to women it would have been somewhere (and don't give me Junia and Phoebe since we know there are issues with those examples).  God has never directed a prophet to ordain a woman to the priesthood in the written records of the world.  Until he does it can't be done and your theories overstep their bounds.

 

Simple to explain. The winners write the history. Males kept the writings, women were written out. I know a few examples when Faithful women filled Preistly roles when no worthy men could be found.

Judges 4

Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Miriam the Prophet and Sister to Aaron.

I wounder what the Priesthood calling of the "Daughters of Aaron" was?

Luke 1

a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

 

The temple is an entirely different situation...

And this I contend since they obviously fill priestly roles in the temple. There really isn't a good reason to not extend the same courtesy outside. Edited January 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

" In Jewish Culture of the day Women prepared and served the meals"

So if there weren't any women around, the guys would just sit there and not eat no matter how hungry they got?

"You did know there is an ancient tradition that Melchezidek was a female"

CFR please

Edited January 26, 2015 by calmoriah

[CV75]

I apologize for my confusing question.  I just responded (see above) in an effort to clarify.

 

The narrative is how the Church gets the very authority to both teach about Christ and excommunicate someone like Kate Kelly who still believes that Christ died, rose again, and all other things which pertain to our religion.  So the narrative cannot be so easily dismissed.

 

But the Church doesn't seem to be willing to actually admit that those apostles and prophets are flawed.  Instead, the procedure seems to be to marginalize anyone who dares to suggest that they might be mistaken about something.

I haven’t anything to say about MS, Delhin, Katy Kelly specifically; I do understand that people have conflicts of various kinds relating to their Church experience.

 

Bearing responsibility and bearing fault can be two very different things, but when they’re used synonymously to describe culpability for these conflicts (whether publicized or private), the Church bears none in putting forth the teachings (that is what churches do), specifically "Gospel Topics"; I really can’t speak to the guilt or innocence of anyone facing Church discipline, so I’m not making judgments against any of the people you named above when I say this:

 

The Church gets the authority to teach and excommunicate, bind and seal, and establish and change teachings from God, but the Church hasn’t any authority to operate without human prophets, apostles and members. In my estimation this puts all God’s children on a level playing field with regards to how we respond to the Gospel and the doctrine of Christ, and to God.

 

So the difficulty of those in the type of conflict/crisis you describe seems to be the confluence of not being able to relate to (a) human prophets and apostles being part of the doctrine of Christ, (b) these servants possessing the aforementioned authority, and © certain teachings, in this case, "Gospel Topics". They can perceive and portray the Church’s imperfections as forms of hypocrisy and abuse, but that doesn’t necessarily make the accusations so. Rather, doing this only highlights the spirit of contention, which is the thing the Lord focuses on quite a bit in laying out His doctrine (3 Nephi 11).

[rockpond]

So the difficulty of those in the type of conflict/crisis you describe seems to be the confluence of not being able to relate to (a) human prophets and apostles being part of the doctrine of Christ, (b) these servants possessing the aforementioned authority, and © certain teachings, in this case, "Gospel Topics". They can perceive and portray the Church’s imperfections as forms of hypocrisy and abuse, but that doesn’t necessarily make the accusations so. Rather, doing this only highlights the spirit of contention, which is the thing the Lord focuses on quite a bit in laying out His doctrine (3 Nephi 11).

 

The Church certainly has the freedom to teach whatever it wants and to put forward whatever narrative it desires, as well.  It's authority comes from God and is only present as long as the Church continues to follow Him.

 

Regarding people in the midst of a faith crisis (and speaking only of my personal experience with such people) they...

 

a)  Do not have a problem relating to human prophets and apostles.  That seems to be one of the first realizations to be internalized as they work through the crisis.

 

b)  Since authority is derived from the narrative that has fallen into question... yes, authority becomes an issue.

 

c)  The Church's imperfections may or may not be forms of hypocrisy and/or abuse.  I think that has to be examined on a case by case basis.  You wouldn't contend that church leaders are immune from committing such, would you?

[Buckeye]

Correct.

Heres a question. Are Larels, Mimaids, and Behives allowed to go Visiting teaching with a Sister in the Releif Society as a companion?

If so, they are already doing all of the jobs a Deacon or Teacher can do except passing Sacrament and collecting fast offerings.

And per D&C 20 (Deacons and Teachers, have no Authority to Administer the Sacrament). I can see hardly any reason by way of revelation to not to. Because as far as Authority is concerned. Larels, Mimaids, and Behives have just as much "Authority" to do those things as Deacons and Teachers do and it all comes down to Church Policy. The buck stops on the desks of the Bretheren and looks very Male-centric and sexist.

When such abiguities in the law ,such as "Administer" = bless vs Pass / Gender Neutral "elders" means anyone of a more advanced age of either sex rather than an "Elder" Melq. Presithood holder) existed in ancient Israel, they'd consult the breastplate with its shining stones of Yes and No. Joseph Smith would consult the Urim and Thumbim in his hat. Todays Bretheren would/should pray about this because I'm getting the feeling that church policy is wrong on these issues. Especially with all the Women anointing with oil for the healing of the sick outside the temple throughout ALLLLLL the scriptures in a Priesthood type capacity. Of course this is my humble and often flawed opinion and I leave that up to the Bretheren.

In the interim, One suggestion I might bring up with my Bishop and the Young Womens leaders in my ward to facilitate Young Womens participation and make them feel more included, responsible and connected to something sacred is to have them get together and fresh bake sacrament bread each week or once a month at first.

 

Zakuska, I'm not sure we've interacted much on this board, so for background you should know that I'm an active life-time member who served a full-time mission, graduated from BYU, got married in the temple, had lots of kids at an early age, SAHM wife, etc. (ie., all the hallmarks of a stereotypical Mormon). I also strongly support female ordination, consider myself a feminist, am trying to be a well-read intellectual, and I support civil SSM. (ie., all the hallmarks of a raving apostate).

 

All of that is a preface to saying "I have, and continue to, struggle with these same gender issues you are trying to address." From my vantage point, here is how I see things. The church is (at least now) clearly teaching that all members operate with priesthood authority. This is because all callings/assignments come through a priesthood chain and thus are priesthood-sanctioned. When a priest blesses the sacrament under the direction of the bishop, that is done with priesthood authority. When the nursery leader passes out gold fish and juice, that also is done with priesthood authority.

 

So YW are acting with priesthood authority in whatever assignments they are given. The difference is that YM are given priesthood office. For Deacons, the sole duty of the office is to "assist" senior priesthood holders. So when a deacon passes the sacrament, gathers fast offerings, serves as an errand-boy for the bishop, or shovels the snow on the church walks, he is performing his office in addition to his authority. There are some duties expressly forbid to deacons and teachers - they cannot "administer" the sacrament or baptize. Originally, the church interpreted D/C 20 so that only priests were involved in the sacrament. During the late 1800s the thinking changed to what it is today - "administer" only means to break the bread and say the prayers; it does not include preparation of the sacrament or passing - so those two functions are allowed to be done by Deacons and Teachers as a matter of policy. Theoretically, those functions could be expanded to YW and other non-office holders too, but I doubt that change will happen anytime soon because the membership is so engrained to think of sacrament prep/passing requires priesthood office.

 

As for YW as VT's, the church handbook discusses VT as pertaining only to RS. It's silent as to YW participation. Personally, I think including YW is an outstanding way to get them more involved, improve the VT program, and especially to help YW transition into RS. But in my stake when I raised the idea it was shot down as not being authorized by the handbook.

 

As for YW preparing sacrament bread, that is certainly appropriate and I know of many wards that do it. For other possibilities as to how YW can be more involved now, without any changes to doctrines or strong policies, I'd recommend Neylan McBaine's new book Women at Church: http://deseretbook.com/Women-Church-Neylan-McBaine/i/5130459

[Tacenda]

Correct.

Heres a question. Are Larels, Mimaids, and Behives allowed to go Visiting teaching with a Sister in the Releif Society as a companion?

If so, they are already doing all of the jobs a Deacon or Teacher can do except passing Sacrament and collecting fast offerings.

And per D&C 20 (Deacons and Teachers, have no Authority to Administer the Sacrament). I can see hardly any reason by way of revelation to not to. Because as far as Authority is concerned. Larels, Mimaids, and Behives have just as much "Authority" to do those things as Deacons and Teachers do and it all comes down to Church Policy. The buck stops on the desks of the Bretheren and looks very Male-centric and sexist.

When such abiguities in the law ,such as "Administer" = bless vs Pass / Gender Neutral "elders" means anyone of a more advanced age of either sex rather than an "Elder" Melq. Presithood holder) existed in ancient Israel, they'd consult the breastplate with its shining stones of Yes and No. Joseph Smith would consult the Urim and Thumbim in his hat. Todays Bretheren would/should pray about this because I'm getting the feeling that church policy is wrong on these issues. Especially with all the Women anointing with oil for the healing of the sick outside the temple throughout ALLLLLL the scriptures in a Priesthood type capacity. Of course this is my humble and often flawed opinion and I leave that up to the Bretheren.

In the interim, One suggestion I might bring up with my Bishop and the Young Womens leaders in my ward to facilitate Young Womens participation and make them feel more included, responsible and connected to something sacred is to have them get together and fresh bake sacrament bread each week or once a month at first.

What, no smiley wink face after this last comment? Are you serious that the way the YW can contribute is bake bread for the Sacrament each week? Try mentioning that to these YW leaders and see what you get. ETA: Maybe for some women this would be an honor though, so I shouldn't be so quick to judge, especially after Rockpond's comment about it. It was just my initial reaction. Edited January 27, 2015 by Tacenda

[CV75]

The Church certainly has the freedom to teach whatever it wants and to put forward whatever narrative it desires, as well.  It's authority comes from God and is only present as long as the Church continues to follow Him.

 

Regarding people in the midst of a faith crisis (and speaking only of my personal experience with such people) they...

 

a)  Do not have a problem relating to human prophets and apostles.  That seems to be one of the first realizations to be internalized as they work through the crisis.

 

b)  Since authority is derived from the narrative that has fallen into question... yes, authority becomes an issue.

 

c)  The Church's imperfections may or may not be forms of hypocrisy and/or abuse.  I think that has to be examined on a case by case basis.  You wouldn't contend that church leaders are immune from committing such, would you?

It seems you are trying to discuss your personal experience with people in the midst of a faith crisis (which naturally is all you have to go by), where you have concluded by case-by-case examination that none of them have a problem relating to human prophets and apostles, but do have an issue with their authority and teachings. Their humanity remains in confluence with their authority and teachings, so I’m not sure how it can be separated out without removing the role of charity (the doctrine of Christ) in the human handling of doctrine and authority.

 

3 Nephi 11 and the quote I keep using from Joseph Smith have a lot in common. First, the Gospel is introduced, and then the doctrine of Christ. Some accept the Gospel (or some of it) but not the doctrine (or some of it), and vice-versa. The Gospel is simply that that Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and ascended into heaven (3 Nephi 11:10-14). The doctrine of Christ is all other appendages which pertain to our religion, including authority and covenants (3 Nephi 11:20-41). 3 Nephi 27 also separates them out: Gospel in verses 13-15, and the doctrine in verses 16-20. Verse 21 sets it forth this way too "Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel [He fulfilled the will of the Father]; and ye know the things that ye must do [doctrine, covenants] in my church [with proper authority]."

 

You haven’t said how many in your case-by-case examination received Church discipline for concluding that the General Authorities have taught false doctrine and/or corrupted the covenants, but if any did, it probably had its root in their having a disputing or contentious stance on an issue of general authority or specific doctrine.

[Zakuska]

"In Jewish Culture of the day Women prepared and served the meals"

So if there weren't any women around, the guys would just sit there and not eat no matter how hungry they got?

Ah... but there were women disciples around most of the time Cal. You know that. Even at the Sermon on the Mount we are told many women disciples were following and sat "a far off" to listen, but they were still present.

Passover was a big deal and usually Celebrated with Family (Think Thanksgiving). We know from Mark that at least 15 others besides the Lord were present at the last supper. 2 unamed possibly women disciples who prepared the meal at the beheast of the Lord, then the 12 Apostles who arrived later with the Savior as we are told.

And we all know how Paul felt about men Church leaders waiting tables.

 

"You did know there is an ancient tradition that Melchezidek was a female"

CFR please

Its the Ancient Wisdom Texts Cal. The Pistis Sophia: calls Melchizedek the hand of the Goddess Sophia (Wisdom) Herself.

 

Melchizedek

Savior-god accepted by Christian Gnostics as a deity greater than

Christ. Melchizedek was the savior for angels, while Christ was only the

Savior for men. Melchizedek was an emanation of the Five Trees of

the Treasure House of Light, according to the Pistis Sophia: the hand of

the Goddess Sophia herself."

http://archive.org/stream/womansencycloped00walkrich/womansencycloped00walkrich_djvu.txt

No wonders we get the Female Wisdom encarnation of Christ in the OT!

Our scriptures say Abraham payed tithing to a female Diety named Melchezidek.

The KJV translates it as. -Melchezideck "King" of Salem- which is actually 'Melchzidek god of Salem'. Melchezideck was a female diety in the Sumarian Pantheon to whom Abraham payed his tithes.

Archaeologists have recently found a whole temple complex dedicated to this Female deity in Egypt. Saw that on H2 the other night.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Zakuska, I'm not sure we've interacted much on this board, so for background you should know that I'm an active life-time member who served a full-time mission, graduated from BYU, got married in the temple, had lots of kids at an early age, SAHM wife, etc. (ie., all the hallmarks of a stereotypical Mormon). I also strongly support female ordination, consider myself a feminist, am trying to be a well-read intellectual, and I support civil SSM. (ie., all the hallmarks of a raving apostate).

Nice to meet you Buckeye. My story... I'm a semi-active (once flamingly active) 5 generation life-time member who served a full-time mission, graduated from SLCC, got married in the temple, 3 kids, Wife is a convert and returned missionary as well and naturalized US citizen. Both of us over the past 3 or 4 years have had several disilussionments with some church policy, Mormon culture, other judgemental members and our oldest daughter in the young women's program. We are trying to work through these issues and don't want to air the wards dirty laundry publicly, so ill stop there. My views have changed over the years on civil SSM. I know by the providence of God since the church's "marriage ceremony" which is purely a religious right since we are "sealed" in the Temple not "married" is not in danger of infringement, so no need to worry there. (However I'm not so sure about civil marriages performed in a ward house. Still working through my feelings on that one). SSM under the law with all its rights and privledges, have no problem with that. Probably wouldn't go out of my way to publicly support or depose at this time.

 

...Snip... 

As for YW as VT's, the church handbook discusses VT as pertaining only to RS. It's silent as to YW participation. Personally, I think including YW is an outstanding way to get them more involved, improve the VT program, and especially to help YW transition into RS. But in my stake when I raised the idea it was shot down as not being authorized by the handbook.

The old "spirit" of the law vs letter of the law argument again huh? Since the Relief Society is a "autonimous" female organization perhaps the sisters should petition their Releif society leaders to petition General Relief Society Presidency to get it added to the docet to get it added to the handbook so the Luk-ish type members will let the "spirit" flow, rather than placing shackles where none belong in the first place.

 

As for YW preparing sacrament bread, that is certainly appropriate and I know of many wards that do it. For other possibilities as to how YW can be more involved now, without any changes to doctrines or strong policies, I'd recommend Neylan McBaine's new book Women at Church: http://deseretbook.com/Women-Church-Neylan-McBaine/i/5130459

Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read. Edited January 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Man... wasted a post

Oh well... here's something else I found.

Here is a link that lists several of the early LDS leaders refering to the fact that women receive the Melchezidek Priesthood upon receiving their Temple endowment.

 

The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today. In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.

For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:

“You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”

Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:

“These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”

The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years. In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power. Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/2335/women-and-the-melchizedek-priesthood/

So if this is correct that Women do indeed receive the Melq. Priesthood when they are endowed in the Temple as the early leaders understood it why then can't Sister Missionaries Baptize, give anointing and healing blessings or any of the other "Male Only" things, other than church Policy?

Edited January 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Buckeye]

...

The old "spirit" of the law vs letter of the law argument again huh? Since the Relief Society is a "autonimous" female organization perhaps the sisters should petition their Releif society leaders to petition General Relief Society Presidency to get it added to the docet to get it added to the handbook so the Luk-ish type members will let the "spirit" flow, rather than placing shakles where non belong.

...

 

Oddly, in my experience, I've seen more opposition from sisters than brothers to the idea of including YW as VT's. I can't figure that one out. Maybe sisters don't want more work (they would have to put the program into effect). I can understand that. Or maybe they more highly value sticking to the handbook.  I don't know. But its not just VT. I see more support for women's ordination from men than women too.

[Zakuska]

Oddly, in my experience, I've seen more opposition from sisters than brothers to the idea of including YW as VT's. I can't figure that one out. Maybe sisters don't want more work (they would have to put the program into effect). I can understand that. Or maybe they more highly value sticking to the handbook.  I don't know. But its not just VT. I see more support for women's ordination from men than women too.

Well... us men kind of have a conflict of intrest with that one.

[Pahoran]

Healing of the sick by anointing with oil and laying on of hands by Women in a Priesthood capacity is present all throughout both Old & New Testament.

CFR, please?

 

I don't have to Joseph Smith did that already.

From the minutes of the 1st Relief Society Meeting when it was organized.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=5

The reason the Womens organizations got the Names they did was because Emma voiced her opinion and gave them different names. But Joseph Smiths intentions are quite clear.

Indeed. "As" in your quote means "like."

The Relief Society was to be organised in the same way, not to be the same thing.

Per church policy only. There's quite a few females present in Da Vinci's[sic] Last Supper depiction ya know.

And how many does the NT say were present?

Take your time.

Zak, I worry that you've been Ms-informed and Ms-led.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Zakuska wrote:
 

Our scriptures say Abraham payed tithing to a female Diety named Melchezidek.
 
The KJV translates it as. -Melchezideck "King" of Salem- which is actually 'Melchzidek god of Salem'. Melchezideck was a female diety in the Sumarian Pantheon to whom Abraham payed his tithes.

Oh dear.

The "mlk" stem means "king."  That's all it ever means.  For example, the Book of Mormon name "Mulek" means "King."  He has been tentatively identified with Milkiah ben Hammelech, which is a mistransliteration: "ben ha-melech" should be translated as "son of the king."  The name Mlk-i-tzdk can be rendered "My king is Tzedek," which means "righteousness," or "King of Tzedek," which is how Paul turns it.

So, whatever your scriptures may say, our scriptures say that Melchizedek was a king and a great high priest.

Not a deity. Not a woman. Not a priestess. A priest.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Rain]

Oddly, in my experience, I've seen more opposition from sisters than brothers to the idea of including YW as VT's. I can't figure that one out. Maybe sisters don't want more work (they would have to put the program into effect). I can understand that. Or maybe they more highly value sticking to the handbook. I don't know. But its not just VT. I see more support for women's ordination from men than women too.

Obviously not every HT and VT experience works this way, but I've found in general VT is far more personal in nature than HT. Many women really want that connection and find it hard to believe they can get it with a 14yo.

[Zakuska]

CFR, please? 

Healing and treating the sick with essential oils by women, Is all over Pahoran. But this one should suffice.

(19-11) Matthew 26:6–13; John 12:2–8. What of the Anointing of Jesus with Spikenard?

“To anoint the head of a guest with ordinary oil was to do him honor; to anoint his feet also was to show unusual and signal regard; but the anointing of head and feet with spikenard, and in such abundance, was an act of reverential homage rarely rendered even to kings. Mary’s act was an expression of adoration; it was the fragrant outwelling of a heart overflowing with worship and affection.” (Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 512.)

This was more than just adoration though. We see that in Christ's response...

V 7, Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

What was so important and religiously significant that such expensive oil had been guarded and needed and as Judas would say wasted for this. (Ie To prepare the Lord for his burial) and ressurection.

And how many does the NT say were present?Take your time.Zak, I worry that you've been Ms-informed and Ms-led.Regards,Pahoran

Already posted a link earlier for that. Christ, 12 apostles, at least 2 other disciples (fulfilling a female rol of food preperation) So from the text, 15 total.

How did you like this post #443. Where early leaders said women got the melq preisthood upon receiving their Temple endowment?

[smac97]

Healing and treating the sick with essential oils by women, Is all over Pahoran. But this one should suffice.

Pahoran can, of course, speak for himself, but I think his inquiry to you pertained to the following bolded portion of your previous statement: "Healing of the sick by anointing with oil and laying on of hands by Women in a Priesthood capacity is present all throughout both Old & New Testament."  I think that's the part that triggered Pahoran's CFR.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2015 by smac97