Ordain Women Is Returning To Temple Square

[rockpond]

Sometimes the church works like a corporation, imo. It's called "policy".

 

As you read the D&C, we notice a pattern of events or people that prompt the Prophet to pray for and subsequently receive revelation.  That seems to be what OW are trying to accomplish.

[ERayR]

Sometimes the church works like a corporation, imo. It's called "policy".

 

Sometimes the Church is a corporation.  Its called taking care of worldly affairs.

[Avatar4321]

I think we are being generous pretending these women actually want to be ordained.

In reality, they don't. If they did they wouldn't be protesting. That's not the order of heaven. They would be becoming a living embodiment of D&C 121 and be supplicating the Lord, not the brethren.

No. Their real purpose is to attempt to distract from general conference. And they will succeed like flies distracting a jobsite. The Spirit will be overwhelmingly powerful to counteract.

So the fact that they are going to cause problems means conference is going to be extra awesome

[Tacenda]

I think we are being generous pretending these women actually want to be ordained.

In reality, they don't. If they did they wouldn't be protesting. That's not the order of heaven. They would be becoming a living embodiment of D&C 121 and be supplicating the Lord, not the brethren.

No. Their real purpose is to attempt to distract from general conference. And they will succeed like flies distracting a jobsite. The Spirit will be overwhelmingly powerful to counteract.

So the fact that they are going to cause problems means conference is going to be extra awesome

I do think there are women that jump on the bandwagon and don't know if they truly know if they want to be ordained or don't but just want some changes in the church.  Here's a podcast that sheds some light that not all women are scoundrels. 

 

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/07/153-female-ordination/

 

It'd be nice for just one person that disagrees with OW, to take a listen and give their opinion on what is being said.  And I appreciate Rockpond for reminding me that there were people mentioned in the D & C that needed JS to pray/ask the Lord for something specific. 

 

I understand that it seems OW are going too far.  I believe that they do too sometimes.  But they apparently believe they're doing something right.  It may land a few in ex Mormon land, but I guess they think they're doing it for the next generation of women.  Remember what the women did to get the right to vote? Here is a link  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States    Did they stay at home and pray/wait for the change?  Maybe this is some of the OW's thinking possibly.  That's why I don't throw all of them in a corner.  I like to listen to the individual voices out there.   

Edited August 31, 2015 by Tacenda

[Nofear]

One of the vignettes proposed in laying on of hands to heal the sick. Ironically, this was not viewed as a priesthood act in the early Church when done by women.
 

Respecting females administering for the healing of the sick, there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing; that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on and praying for the sick, than in wetting the face with water; it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administration. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 224)

See several more quotes compiled by Scott Woodward: http://scottwoodward.org/priesthood_women_administeringtosick.html

 

It is perhaps a little ironic that the practice of laying on of hands as an expression of faith has been discouraged because of people confusing it as being exclusively a priesthood act.

[Avatar4321]

Seems to me if they want people to listen to them (which btw we have) they should listen back when we respond

[Rain]

I think few have honestly listened to them with their hearts. I know I haven't done it well at all.

Listening to one important person in my life has become very important. It has been quite hard because I don't do it well. It wasn't till I went to an Education week class a year ago where I heard, "Listening means love. It doesn't mean agreement" that it became "ok" for me to feel comfortable listening to this loved one.

Listening to people who stridently disagree with some of the things I feel and believe is that much harder than listening to my loved one.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

We've seen some good strides by the Church over the past few years...

• Women finally praying in Gen Con.
• Leadership positions created in missions for Sister Missionaries.
• General Women's session being acknowledged as part of Gen Con.
• And, most recently, some of our female general authorities being placed on the top councils of the church.

Obviously these aren't all entirely due to the actions of OW, but I believe their voice played a part.

I like the idea of the living art vignettes to depict times in Mormon history when the women had exercised more authority. I guess we'll see how it comes off but I like the idea.

Members of presidencies of Church auxiliaries (Relief Society, Primary, Young Women, Young Men, Sunday School) are not General Authorities, unless, in the case of the men, that position is incidental to their call as a General Authority. I think our auxiliary leaders would readily confirm that.

You are free to promulgate your view, but being inaccurate or misleading in expressing that view does not sustain your credibility.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That wasn't a tank top, but do agree she seemed young...because she is young, lol.

I've seen young people with a very dignified and appealing presence and demeanor. Being young is no excuse.

[why me]

As you read the D&C, we notice a pattern of events or people that prompt the Prophet to pray for and subsequently receive revelation.  That seems to be what OW are trying to accomplish.

Not really. Their website claims that women must have the priesthood. No room for prayer in that statement. But nice try in claiming that they want the GAs to pray about it. They would only accept a yes.

[why me]

I do think there are women that jump on the bandwagon and don't know if they truly know if they want to be ordained or don't but just want some changes in the church.  Here's a podcast that sheds some light that not all women are scoundrels. 

 

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/07/153-female-ordination/

 

It'd be nice for just one person that disagrees with OW, to take a listen and give their opinion on what is being said.  And I appreciate Rockpond for reminding me that there were people mentioned in the D & C that needed JS to pray/ask the Lord for something specific. 

 

I understand that it seems OW are going too far.  I believe that they do too sometimes.  But they apparently believe they're doing something right.  It may land a few in ex Mormon land, but I guess they think they're doing it for the next generation of women.  Remember what the women did to get the right to vote? Here is a link  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States    Did they stay at home and pray/wait for the change?  Maybe this is some of the OW's thinking possibly.  That's why I don't throw all of them in a corner.  I like to listen to the individual voices out there.   

When they claim that women must have the priesthood, it means that they are not interested in prayer nor in what the GAs will say. They just want women to have the priesthood period. Where does prayer come into the 'must'?

 

By the way, I believe that lindsay referred to her bare shoulders as wearing a tank top to support her claim that she is an independent mormon who does not need to follow a prophet but rather follow herself and what she wants.

Edited August 31, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

Members of presidencies of Church auxiliaries (Relief Society, Primary, Young Women, Young Men, Sunday School) are not General Authorities, unless, in the case of the men, that position is incidental to their call as a General Authority. I think our auxiliary leaders would readily confirm that.

You are free to promulgate your view, but being inaccurate or misleading in expressing that view does not sustain your credibility.

 

I used "general authorities" (lowercase) because I consider them as such.  I understand the distinction you're making.

[why me]

I've seen young people with a very dignified and appealing presence and demeanor. Being young is no excuse.

You are right. She is really not that young. She is married and has a family and she is 33 years old. She seems just a little immature for that age. Thus the problem. I think that Tacenda believed that she was 22 years old by the way lindsay acted.

Edited August 31, 2015 by why me

[provoman]

My questions are what % of active LDS members are aware that Mormon Women performed ordinances outside of the temple in early Church history? How many are aware that they seemed to officiate in some level of priesthood outside the temple in early LDS history. My followup question is would knowing such historical details influence these members to be more likely or less likely to support the church taking a major step forward and allowing women to return to these responsibilities? My next question is what other legitimate ways are available for such a cause to work towards making LDS members aware of that history?

Personally I am not comfortable with the demands. I am not comfortable with any protesting on church property. But I am comfortable with asking the question and working to raise awareness of said history.

I think the role of women in the Church, from the beginning to now, is an important discussion to have. Is an "in your face" approach the way to have that discussion? I do not think it is the best way. Sidewalk presentations would be exposed to a greater audience.

[rockpond]

Not really. Their website claims that women must have the priesthood. No room for prayer in that statement. But nice try in claiming that they want the GAs to pray about it. They would only accept a yes.

 

Again, they express their belief that women must be ordained to reflect the "equity and expansiveness" of gospel teachings.  That is their belief.

 

But their mission statement concludes as follows:  "As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer."

[Scott Lloyd]

I used "general authorities" (lowercase) because I consider them as such.  I understand the distinction you're making.

Regardless of your rationale, it is misleading in an ecclesiastical context to call them general authorities. That is a special designation in the Church that is not yours to confer. You could accurately state what you appear to be trying to convey by using a term such as general officers or general leaders.

Again, an ideological bent does not justify inaccurate use of terms.

[rockpond]

Regardless of your rationale, it is misleading in an ecclesiastical context to call them general authorities. That is a special designation in the Church that is not yours to confer. You could accurately state what you appear to be trying to convey by using a term such as general officers or general leaders.

Again, an ideological bent does not justify inaccurate use of terms.

 

General officers, leaders, authorities... not all of us are that uptight about these things, Scott.  But your correction of my "error" and distraction from my point is noted.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are right. She is really not that young. She is married and has a family and she is 33 years old. She seems just a little immature for that age. Thus the problem. I think that Tacenda believed that she was 22 years old by the way lindsay acted.

An older person giving young people a bad name, as it were, by trying to act younger than her age.

(I haven't seen the podcast; I'm speaking conceptually.

[bluebell]

Regardless of your rationale, it is misleading in an ecclesiastical context to call them general authorities. That is a special designation in the Church that is not yours to confer. You could accurately state what you appear to be trying to convey by using a term such as general officers or general leaders.

Again, an ideological bent does not justify inaccurate use of terms.

 

Since the term 'general authorities' is given to all of the senior leaders of the church, if rockpond sees these women as 'senior leaders' there probably isn't another term that he could use to convey what he seems to be trying to convey.

[provoman]

An older person giving young people a bad name, as it were, by trying to act younger than her age.

(I haven't seen the podcast; I'm speaking conceptually.

I watched 5 - 10 minutes. Her gum chewing, and adjusting her hair every few seconds were very distracting.

[Scott Lloyd]

General officers, leaders, authorities... not all of us are that uptight about these things, Scott.  But your correction of my "error" and distraction from my point is noted.

Correction of falsehood is always in order, whether you think it distracting or not.

It has to do with priesthood authority and power. It would be just as wrong to refer to Tad Callister (Sunday School general president) as a General Authority, even though he used to be one.

[ALarson]

Since the term 'general authorities' is given to all of the senior leaders of the church, if rockpond sees these women as 'senior leaders' there probably isn't another term that he could use to convey what he seems to be trying to convey.

I agree. Aren't they referred to as the  Relief Society "General"  President and so on ("General" board)?  Seems a bit nit-picky to say they are not general authorities (lower case).

Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Since the term 'general authorities' is given to all of the senior leaders of the church, if rockpond sees these women as 'senior leaders' there probably isn't another term that he could use to convey what he seems to be trying to convey.

If he's trying to imply that they hold authority and power that they do not, he is just plain wrong.

Again, "general officers" is a perfectly serviceable term in the Church for what they are, one that has been used for generations.

[ALarson]

If he's trying to imply that they hold authority and power that they do not, he is just plain wrong.

Again, "general officers" is a perfectly serviceable term in the Church for what they are, one that has been used for generations.

So general authorities have to be male and hold the priesthood?  

 

I guess I have not thought about that distinction.  I've always included the members of the general Relief Society presidency and the general Primary presidency too when I thought of general authorities of the church (lower case).  Interesting....

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. Aren't they referred to as the Relief Society "General" President and so on ("General" board)? Seems a bit nit-picky to say they are not general authorities (lower case).

The problem is not with the word "general". As I said, it is fine to refer to them as general officers. But the term General Authority is a very specific appellation denoting certain priesthood power and line authority and is not properly applied to auxiliary heads.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd