Mormonism In The Next Five Years

[Gray]

You did not address a single question asked, but I can understand your attachment to an idea and not wanting to entertain that it could be wrong. 

 

We have two scriptures in our cannon that say all are like unto God, regardless of gender. 

 

Personally I think gender discrimination is repressive and wrong. Discrimination is sinful because it negates those who are discriminated against. And when people try to justify it, the usually end up putting the discriminated up on a pedestal and denigrating the privileged group in a well intentioned but poorly thought out attempt to make up for the discrimination in some way.  

[Gray]

Of course not, it transcends gender, race, ethnicity, nationalism, birthright, wealth, etc. The point is there is really no such thing as equality. I don't like it when we get the tisk tisk tisk we need to be more equal. It's a PC thing, it's not true and will never be true, nor is it an eternal principle nor can it ever be an eternal principle..

 

All are alike unto God. Sounds like an eternal principle. 

[rockpond]

There are councils where there are strong female voices who contribute in a big way to how the unit functions. If women are not being heard in councils that is more to do with the individuals in the council, or the culture they live in, than with the church organization as a whole.

 

Women, even those with strong voices, cannot be heard in councils that they are not a part of.

[Gray]

Christ is subordinate to the Father.  Does it bother him?  I don't see evidence of it.

 

Subordination based on gender is something else entirely. 

[Gray]

JST 1 Corinthians 14:35: "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to rule in the church."

 

I believe that the policy goes all the way back to the fall of Adam and Eve and the temple endowment speaks about it.

 

What Paul actually wrote is that women shouldn't speak in church, which is something we rightly ignore. 

[Gray]

The Lord does not care about our personal desires to feel equal.  He cares that we do as he asks.  Sometimes that might mean we don't get something that others have in this life.  That is ok.  Our job is to do the best with what we are given. The parable of talents is a very unfair, unequal, teaching by Jesus at face value.  One guy is given 10 talents, one guy is given 5 and one is given a lousy one talent.  Clearly the guy with 10 and 5 talents have given a much bigger advantage at the start than the guy with one talent.  The parable is not about how many we are given but what we do with what we have.  If we do well with what we have even though we are not equal to others, in the end we get everything. 

 

CFR that God ever said that women shouldn't be equal to men, or that women shouldn't have the priesthood. 

[Sleeper Cell]

We have two scriptures in our cannon that say all are like unto God, regardless of gender. 

 

Personally I think gender discrimination is repressive and wrong. Discrimination is sinful because it negates those who are discriminated against. And when people try to justify it, the usually end up putting the discriminated up on a pedestal and denigrating the privileged group in a well intentioned but poorly thought out attempt to make up for the discrimination in some way.  

Do you believe that gender will exist in the eternities, or is it just an artifact of mortality  -- perhaps something God introduced to speed up evolution?

[Gray]

Do you believe that gender will exist in the eternities, or is it just an artifact of mortality  -- perhaps something God introduced to speed up evolution?

 

Well, the origin of gender seems to have come from the bottom up, not the top down. I choose to call that "of God," but I don't mean that God intentionally thought, "now I will create gender," just that everything that evolves is necessarily "of God". Presumably even under orthodox LDS theology, God did not invent gender, as God is merely an exalted man, one of an infinite line of the human family. 

 

Essentially, gender evolved because sexual reproduction is usually a survival advantage over asexual reproduction. As to what that means for the eternities, I don't know. 

 

I don't believe priesthood is the counterpart of motherhood, though. Fatherhood is the counterpart of motherhood. I take fatherhood very seriously. It's far more important than priesthood. All of us creatures who reproduce sexually have a legacy of motherhood and fatherhood. It's a separate issue from how we should think about structuring our church leadership. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Gray

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I see a Spanish Apostle first like Elder Claudio Costa but maybe they'll call both a Spaniard and a African person

Costa is Brazilian

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I rather liked the list and see nothing your average LDS should be offended over...

I particularly hope this comes to pass...
 

I do anticipate changes in the American LDS churches which will help African Americans remain LDS. These include more liberal music guidelines (i.e. allowing call and response, brass, clapping, and some guitar—particularly in areas where investigators are accustomed to worship which includes making “a joyful noise” in all ways); 

 

[Okrahomer]

A great article by BYU professor Margaret Blair Young on Patheos:  The Future of Mormonism (The Next Five Years)

 

Six interesting predictions... check 'em out and let us now what you think.

 

Does anyone know why the list published on Patheos is different from the list as reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack at the SL Tribune?

[rockpond]

Does anyone know why the list published on Patheos is different from the list as reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack at the SL Tribune?

 

It appears that PFS decided to summarize Young's points differently in her review of the Patheos piece.

[bluebell]

While it's true that Jesus went against some social norms, that doesn't mean he went against every social norm. For example, He is recorded as having attributed illness to demon possession. And while he was more accepting of Samaritans than most, he was still mostly ignored the gentiles. On the other hand, he did teach women students and according to scripture the first special witnesses to the resurrection of Christ were women.

 

The bible also has accounts of Him speaking to the demons that He casts out and them replying, so we can't blame those issues on 'social norms,' unless it's also a part of a social norm to make up conversations that never happened.  

 

As far as samaritans-He bucked the social norms there so you can't use that as an example, and He explains in the scriptures why He has little dealings with the gentiles and it had nothing to do with social norms.

 

Jesus went against ever social norm that was a sin or unrighteous, or was a detriment to the people spiritually.  Can you find any examples where that wasn't the case?  In this conversation, maybe that's a good place to find common ground between us.

 

 

 

Did He ever instruct anyone not to ordain women? Nope. Did men in the 19th century overlook women? Yes. Should we be surprised by that? No. 

 

I really don't get this line of reasoning.

 

Did He ever instruct anyone to ordain women?  Nope.  Did He ever ordain any women Himself?  Nope.  Can men in the 19th century overlook women and yet still have been correct in not ordaining them?  Yes.  Should that be confusing to us?  No.

 

​There.  I've used the same arguments that you have.  I'm guessing they are about as persuasive and valid to you as yours were for me.  

 

That's a pretty big assumption. It looks an awful lot like the assumptions that were used to justify the priesthood ban against blacks, which have now been repudiated.

 

You keep saying stuff like this but it's not actually the same at all.  It's like you are determined to do whatever you can to try to connect this to the priesthood ban and/or racism because it's your only leg to stand on.

 

The scriptures tell us over and over again that there is completely safety in following the example of Jesus.  In fact, following His example is a commandment.  

 

Do we have any examples to follow in the scriptures of Him interacting with black men or women?  No.  Therefore, can we claim, using Christ's example in the scriptures, to know anything about how He felt about the ordination of black people?  No.  We can't, not using the scriptures and His mortal example.  The source material just isn't there.

 

Do we have any examples to follow in the scriptures of Him interacting with women?  Yes.  Many.  Therefore, can we claim, using Christ's example in the scriptures, to know anything about how He felt about the ordination of women?  Yes.  We can legitimately use the source material to make educated assumptions.  

 

You might as well say that the one holy and proper set of footwear is sandals. We have his example to follow, right?

 

 

I believe what you are doing here is a fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum.  It's the act of reducing someone's argument to it's simplest and most absurd in order to make it invalid.  

 

Trying to suggest that because it is necessary to follow Jesus's example in spiritual matters, it must also be necessary to follow His example in His choice of clothing is a straw man.  We all know that when the scriptures command us to follow Him, it is talking about matters of importance and not unimportant things like how He combed His hair or whether or not He liked figs.

 

 

What we do have is scripture which says that all are alike unto God, black and white, male and female. So what justification do we have for discrimination in the church? 

 

 

Something is only discrimination (in this context) when it is done unjustly.  That's why having separate bathrooms, for example, for each gender is not discriminatory-it's not unjust.  

 

I think you need to ask yourself, is it discrimination that the ability to bear children is completely dependent upon gender?  Also, does the fact that the ability to bear children is completely dependent upon gender negate the scripture you quoted, where all are alike unto God?  

 

If the answer is 'no,' then that is our justification for how priesthood ordination can be completely dependent upon gender and yet not be discriminatory, and also not mean that men and women are not alike unto God.  

 

If you have to denigrate fatherhood to make your point, then I think you've actually made my point for me. People can't justify this discrimination without throwing one gender or the other under the bus. 

 

 

I'm not denigrating fatherhood and i'm not throwing fathers under the bus. I'm stating a simply point.  These are basic biological facts that cannot be disputed or ignored.  Bearing a child is not in any way equal to becoming a father.  It's odd that you refuse to recognize them.

 

Do you know what i had to do to bear a child?  Do you understand what my body had to do?  There isn't room enough to list it all.  I wanted to puke (and sometimes did) for 20 solid weeks (that's five whole months or almost half a year being nauseous all. the. time. while still having to take care of my other children, fulfill church callings, and generally function in the real world).   I developed Gestational diabetes and had to make myself bleed four times a day checking blood sugars, plus heavily manage my food intake, losing weight the whole time because limiting calories while pregnant is not easy on the body, which needs more calories than usual, not less.  I spent months constantly hungry but did it because the health of my baby was at stake).  I had to have my gall bladder removed (yay!  Another surgery two weeks after having a c-section and while having a two week old!) because multiple pregnancies put to much strain on it and it basically broke (to put it in layman's terms).  I had to have my abdomen cut open to get three babies out and then recover from major abdominal surgery (they cut thru seven layers of muscle and tissue) while taking care of newborns around the clock.   I went months not being able to breath correctly because babies use a lot of oxygen and take up a lot of lung space.  Near the end, i had to choose between putting on shoes and breathing, no joke.  When you are pregnant your uterus goes from the size of a closed fist to that of a volleyball/basketball.  Do you how such a big organ fits into the body? It sits on or squishes all the othere internal organs.  Do you have any idea what it's like to feel like you have to pee for 4 months with little relief because even when the bladder is empty it still feels full because your baby is literally sitting on it?  It does not feel great. Pregnancy hormones are no joke. Hot flashes to the point of waking up so wet from sweating that i would have to get up and change clothes.  Do you know that when you're pregnant your blood volume doubles.  This is why pregnant women are so hot and is part of the weight gain that happens.  It's also why pregnant women are loved and adored by mosquitoes everywhere.  Just another fun perk!  And it doesn't get any more pretty after having the baby.  I won't even go into how fun it is to bleed pretty much 'full throttle' for 6 solid weeks or leaking fluid from multiple places at all times of the day and night, regardless of what else you are supposed to be doing.

 

Do you know what my husband had to do to become a father?  Have sex.  Do you know what his body had to do?  Absolutely nothing.  

 

Mothering and fathering are completely equal, and mothers and fathers are completely equal in importance.  Becoming a mother or a father, is not equal.  

 

There is nothing about my gender that makes me more able to serve in the church than a woman. It's an artificially constructed discrimination. There is no reason for it.

 

 

Has anyone claimed that men are ordained and women aren't because men are more able to serve in the church than a woman?  I've never heard that argument so i have no idea what your point is in using it here as if it means something.

 

 

Lack or ordination means we lose out on the female perspective and female voices.

 

 

No it doesn't.  There is nothing about ordination that requires a woman to be ordained before she can share her perspective and voice.  

 

I believe it also has a cultural effect. I see a lot of trickle down sexism in attitudes toward women, and I think that starts with the inequality we're raised with in church.

 

 

This cultural effect can be changed with many changes that do not require female ordination.  I would love to see some such changes occur.  

 

 

Ask anyone in church, most will tell you they believe bishops get special blessings as a reward for their service. But beyond that, there are plenty of other paid callings in the church, and women don't have access to most of them. 

 

 We all get special blessings for our service, but they are not blessings that others are left out of-they just get them in different ways.  A woman get's special blessings from being a RS president but that does not mean that most of the women in the church (who will never get that chance) are being shorted something.  Men who never serve as a bishop are not losing out on needed blessings, are they?

 

Even if women were ordained, most would still never be a bishop (or gain a calling where they were paid) and would still have no access to those blessings, so in affect, female ordination doesn't even actually solve the problem that you are arguing must be solved before the church is just.  

 

Often when arguing against women's ordination, people will downplay the importance and blessings of holding the priesthood or serving in certain callings. But I promise you that the importance of these things is not downplayed to the priesthood holders who are offered them.

 

 

I'm not trying to down play the blessings, i'm trying to keep them in perspective.  

 

Go back to all that i said I had to go thru to bear a child.  There are immense blessings associated with that gift as well.  Immense, and i would not trade those blessings for anything.  They are offered to me as a woman and you, as a man, have absolutely no access to them.  You can't even comprehend many of them because they are not describable and you've never experienced it.  

 

Does your inability to have access to those blessings deny you anything of importance?  Anything that matters?  Are you being shortchanged?  No.  Our lives are not the same-they are not equal-and because of that we do not have access to exact same blessings.  If we were both the same gender that would still be true.  But does that mean that God has been unjust with you?  Or with me?  

 

​No.  It doesn't mean that at all.  

 

I completely agree that there are blessings that go along with holding the priesthood that I have no access to.  That doesn't mean that I'm being treated unfairly.

 

 

[bluebell]

It appears that PFS decided to summarize Young's points differently in her review of the Patheos piece.

 

So she editorialized the list?

[rockpond]

So she editorialized the list?

 

No.  I think it was more of a formatting change.  The points seem to be the same just laid out differently.

[CV75]

CV75....who exactly views this article as "presented as fact." I'm pretty sure everybody, including Margaret herself, know this is opinion. It is part of a panel of viewpoints about the possible future from differing angles based on extrapolating current trends into what that'll mean for our future. (see here). I am surprised by some of the responses.....not because I would expect mass agreement, but because some of these move well beyond what is actually stated in the article.  

 

With luv,

BD

Cool—I’ve just been taking the article as it was presented in the OP, in isolation and on its own merits (and additionally with a grain of salt!). My impression is that some of the opinions are presented as open-and-shut cases without offering much reasoning, yet these are used to create an atmosphere to justify the predictions.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the other articles follow the same approach, whether they are “pretty run-of-the-mill liberal [or conservative] Mormonism” -- whatever they might be -- or not. LOL, just noticed something: does it have to do with the Salt lake Tribune making hay of it and calling it "provocative"?

 

I don’t get surprised when posters go off topic on a "provocative" piece; the mods seem to decide how far that is permitted.

[Damien the Leper]

Get over yourself.

Ok. We'll talk soon, sweetheart.

[Mars]

they seem fine to me.

 

i don't necessarily agree, but...  ok.

[carbon dioxide]

Speculation

Perhaps BUT if Christ follows the honor your father and mother thing then it probably is the case.

[carbon dioxide]

We have two scriptures in our cannon that say all are like unto God, regardless of gender. 

 

Personally I think gender discrimination is repressive and wrong. Discrimination is sinful because it negates those who are discriminated against. And when people try to justify it, the usually end up putting the discriminated up on a pedestal and denigrating the privileged group in a well intentioned but poorly thought out attempt to make up for the discrimination in some way.  

Are all alike in all things?  Are all members apostles?  Are all members high priests?  We are all entitled to the same eternal blessings from God.  Not one race is superior to another but that does not mean all are exactly the same in the Church.  Some people are put in positions and others are not.  That is not being unfair.  All can not be Indian chiefs.  Some people have to take the role of being just Indians.

 

Gender discrimination is not always wrong.  I have no problem with gender discrimination in the NFL.  I don't want to see a woman get hit by a 250 pound linebacker.  That would not be pretty.  Some places gender discrimination is wrong but in other areas it may not be wrong.  Gender specific bathrooms is another example of good discrimination.  If the Lord wants to give men certain roles and women certain roles and those roles do not mix, that is his choice.  He runs the show.  We are put on earth to see if we would do all the things God commands (Abraham 3). We are not put on earth to see if we can force God to do our will.

Edited August 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rodheadlee]

All are alike unto God. Sounds like an eternal principle. 

So you think you are equal to God?

[Gray]

The bible also has accounts of Him speaking to the demons that He casts out and them replying, so we can't blame those issues on 'social norms,' unless it's also a part of a social norm to make up conversations that never happened.  

 

As the gospels are not at face value a historically-accurate source, many conversations (with demons and otherwise) may not have happened. 

 

As far as samaritans-He bucked the social norms there so you can't use that as an example, and He explains in the scriptures why He has little dealings with the gentiles and it had nothing to do with social norms.

 

Yes, that's what I said. But he is not represented as having bucked the social norms in His disregard for gentiles, a point you seem to have skipped.

 

Jesus went against ever social norm that was a sin or unrighteous, or was a detriment to the people spiritually.  Can you find any examples where that wasn't the case?  In this conversation, maybe that's a good place to find common ground between us.

 

The way you're setting it up here is kind of a "you lose vs I win" situation. But see my previous comment.

 

I really don't get this line of reasoning.

 

Did He ever instruct anyone to ordain women?  Nope.  

 

How do you know that?

 

Did He ever ordain any women Himself?  Nope.  

 

How do you know that?

 

Can men in the 19th century overlook women and yet still have been correct in not ordaining them?  Yes.  Should that be confusing to us?  No.

 

​There.  I've used the same arguments that you have.  I'm guessing they are about as persuasive and valid to you as yours were for me.  

 

Not quite the same. You're making the argument from ignorance, I am not. 

 

You keep saying stuff like this but it's not actually the same at all.  It's like you are determined to do whatever you can to try to connect this to the priesthood ban and/or racism because it's your only leg to stand on.

 

The scriptures tell us over and over again that there is completely safety in following the example of Jesus.  In fact, following His example is a commandment.  

 

Do we have any examples to follow in the scriptures of Him interacting with black men or women?  No.  Therefore, can we claim, using Christ's example in the scriptures, to know anything about how He felt about the ordination of black people?  No.  We can't, not using the scriptures and His mortal example.  The source material just isn't there.

 

The problem is you have no data to base your conclusion on. You would need an example of Jesus explicitly saying, "I have not ordained women, and neither should you."

 

Do we have any examples to follow in the scriptures of Him interacting with women?  Yes.  Many.  Therefore, can we claim, using Christ's example in the scriptures, to know anything about how He felt about the ordination of women?  Yes.  We can legitimately use the source material to make educated assumptions.  

 

No, you are again arguing from silence, which makes your arguments logically invalid. 

 

I believe what you are doing here is a fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum.  It's the act of reducing someone's argument to it's simplest and most absurd in order to make it invalid.  

 

I was trying to gently point out why your argument was fallacious without resorting to internet speak about specific informal fallacies. Now that I've said specifically you're making the argument from silence, does that clarify my position?

 

Trying to suggest that because it is necessary to follow Jesus's example in spiritual matters, it must also be necessary to follow His example in His choice of clothing is a straw man.  We all know that when the scriptures command us to follow Him, it is talking about matters of importance and not unimportant things like how He combed His hair or whether or not He liked figs.

 

Modern LDS scripture says that there is no difference between spiritual and material. But from my point of view the obsession on making ecclesiastical divisions based on gender is just as silly and shallow as obsessing  over clothing. 

 

Something is only discrimination (in this context) when it is done unjustly.  That's why having separate bathrooms, for example, for each gender is not discriminatory-it's not unjust.  

 

I think you need to ask yourself, is it discrimination that the ability to bear children is completely dependent upon gender?  Also, does the fact that the ability to bear children is completely dependent upon gender negate the scripture you quoted, where all are alike unto God?  

 

It is evolution - no one is mandating that women bear children instead of men. Evolution as a blind agent has no notions of fair or unfair.

 

If the answer is 'no,' then that is our justification for how priesthood ordination can be completely dependent upon gender and yet not be discriminatory, and also not mean that men and women are not alike unto God.  

 

I wouldn't use nature as a justification for immorality. Nature is amoral and much of our sense of right and wrong is a reaction to some of the horrible things we find in nature. 

 

I'm not denigrating fatherhood and i'm not throwing fathers under the bus. I'm stating a simply point.  These are basic biological facts that cannot be disputed or ignored.  Bearing a child is not in any way equal to becoming a father.  It's odd that you refuse to recognize them.

 

If bearing a child is the equivalent to priesthood, why don't we give male animals the priesthood? After all, female animals also bear children. 

 

Do you know what i had to do to bear a child?  Do you understand what my body had to do?  There isn't room enough to list it all.  I wanted to puke (and sometimes did) for 20 solid weeks (that's five whole months or almost half a year being nauseous all. the. time. while still having to take care of my other children, fulfill church callings, and generally function in the real world).   I developed Gestational diabetes and had to make myself bleed four times a day checking blood sugars, plus heavily manage my food intake, losing weight the whole time because limiting calories while pregnant is not easy on the body, which needs more calories than usual, not less.  I spent months constantly hungry but did it because the health of my baby was at stake).  I had to have my gall bladder removed (yay!  Another surgery two weeks after having a c-section and while having a two week old!) because multiple pregnancies put to much strain on it and it basically broke (to put it in layman's terms).  I had to have my abdomen cut open to get three babies out and then recover from major abdominal surgery (they cut thru seven layers of muscle and tissue) while taking care of newborns around the clock.   I went months not being able to breath correctly because babies use a lot of oxygen and take up a lot of lung space.  Near the end, i had to choose between putting on shoes and breathing, no joke.  When you are pregnant your uterus goes from the size of a closed fist to that of a volleyball/basketball.  Do you how such a big organ fits into the body? It sits on or squishes all the othere internal organs.  Do you have any idea what it's like to feel like you have to pee for 4 months with little relief because even when the bladder is empty it still feels full because your baby is literally sitting on it?  It does not feel great. Pregnancy hormones are no joke. Hot flashes to the point of waking up so wet from sweating that i would have to get up and change clothes.  Do you know that when you're pregnant your blood volume doubles.  This is why pregnant women are so hot and is part of the weight gain that happens.  It's also why pregnant women are loved and adored by mosquitoes everywhere.  Just another fun perk!  And it doesn't get any more pretty after having the baby.  I won't even go into how fun it is to bleed pretty much 'full throttle' for 6 solid weeks or leaking fluid from multiple places at all times of the day and night, regardless of what else you are supposed to be doing.

 

That's hard. My biology dictates that I'll probably die earlier than a woman the same age as me. Which sucks. But this has nothing at all to do with discrimination in the church.

 

Do you know what my husband had to do to become a father?  Have sex.  Do you know what his body had to do?  Absolutely nothing.  

Again, I don't see the relevance of this line of argument. We all know how reproduction works. 

 

Mothering and fathering are completely equal, and mothers and fathers are completely equal in importance.  Becoming a mother or a father, is not equal.  

 

Just be grateful we don't reproduce asexually. I'd hate to divide in two in order to reproduce. 

 

Has anyone claimed that men are ordained and women aren't because men are more able to serve in the church than a woman?  I've never heard that argument so i have no idea what your point is in using it here as if it means something.

 

If the difference isn't in ability, then there is no good reason for the discrimination. 

 

No it doesn't.  There is nothing about ordination that requires a woman to be ordained before she can share her perspective and voice.  

 

This cultural effect can be changed with many changes that do not require female ordination.  I would love to see some such changes occur.  

 

 We all get special blessings for our service, but they are not blessings that others are left out of-they just get them in different ways.  A woman get's special blessings from being a RS president but that does not mean that most of the women in the church (who will never get that chance) are being shorted something.  Men who never serve as a bishop are not losing out on needed blessings, are they?

 

I think most members would say they are losing out on unique blessings at least. 

 

Even if women were ordained, most would still never be a bishop (or gain a calling where they were paid) and would still have no access to those blessings, so in affect, female ordination doesn't even actually solve the problem that you are arguing must be solved before the church is just.  

 

It would give a voice to women and help women who have fully awakened to the problem to feel fully validated, even if they themselves will never be bishops. In the same way that most black people will never be president, but the fact that a black person can become president helps them feel validated as citizens.

 

I'm not trying to down play the blessings, i'm trying to keep them in perspective.  

 

Go back to all that i said I had to go thru to bear a child.  There are immense blessings associated with that gift as well.  Immense, and i would not trade those blessings for anything.  They are offered to me as a woman and you, as a man, have absolutely no access to them.  You can't even comprehend many of them because they are not describable and you've never experienced it.  

 

The difference is no one has specifically blocked me from accessing that experience. 

 

Does your inability to have access to those blessings deny you anything of importance?  Anything that matters?  Are you being shortchanged?  No.  Our lives are not the same-they are not equal-and because of that we do not have access to exact same blessings.  If we were both the same gender that would still be true.  But does that mean that God has been unjust with you?  Or with me?  

 

Many elements of how we are born are unjust. If we wish to attribute them to God, then yes, that would mean God was unjust. But that's another topic.

 

​No.  It doesn't mean that at all.  

 

I completely agree that there are blessings that go along with holding the priesthood that I have no access to.  That doesn't mean that I'm being treated unfairly.

 

Other women in the church disagree and feel that they are being treated unfairly. Do their concerns matter?

 

 

[Gray]

Are all alike in all things?  Are all members apostles?  Are all members high priests?  We are all entitled to the same eternal blessings from God.  Not one race is superior to another but that does not mean all are exactly the same in the Church.  Some people are put in positions and others are not.  That is not being unfair.  All can not be Indian chiefs.  Some people have to take the role of being just Indians.

 

Yes, but again that is all based on individual qualifications, on the contents of their underpants. 

 

Gender discrimination is not always wrong.  I have no problem with gender discrimination in the NFL.  I don't want to see a woman get hit by a 250 pound linebacker.  That would not be pretty.  Some places gender discrimination is wrong but in other areas it may not be wrong.  Gender specific bathrooms is another example of good discrimination.  If the Lord wants to give men certain roles and women certain roles and those roles do not mix, that is his choice.  He runs the show.  We are put on earth to see if we would do all the things God commands (Abraham 3). We are not put on earth to see if we can force God to do our will.

 

You can make a case for discrimination in the NFL and in bathrooms. Can you do so for women and the priesthood?

[Gray]

So you think you are equal to God?

 

No, I said all are alike unto God. 

[KevinG]

In 1992 Elder Packer was speaking to a group of BYU students and someone asked what he thought the emphasis of the Church would be in coming years.  Elder Packer replied that it would be the same as it has always been.  Strengthening families through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.