Answers To Bobbieaware's Question About Female Ordination

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Please leave LDS priesthood culture and tradition alone, it harms no one.

 

But there have been examples of how people have felt harmed, so saying it harmed "no one" isn't defensible.

Again, you're arguing to keep the status quo of culture and tradition, both of which are in constant flux. There is nothing sacred about a cultural tradition so why not challenge it?

[TheSkepticChristian]

 But there have been examples of how people have felt harmed, so saying it harmed "no one" isn't defensible.

 

Of course! There are millions of LDS members, so it means that "some" will feel harmed for anything. Some LDS feel harmed because the church thinks "measures that will allow those who are now here illegally to work legally"  are necessary. So your "some" argument is completely irrelevant.

Do you have evidence that a significant number of believing LDS feel harmed because the church doesn't ordain women?  Please give me significant numbers, I am tired of your "some"

 

and do you have any evidence that most OW fans truly love the LDS church? Kate Kelly didn't, see

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2434905-155/ordain-women-founder-kate-kelly-happier

 

 

 gain, you're arguing to keep the status quo of culture and tradition, both of which are in constant flux. There is nothing sacred about a cultural tradition so why not challenge it?

 

Do what ever you want, but there are other topics that are far more important. However, if you give me significant numbers I will support the OW movement.

 

 

You attitude of "if they don't like it they can join another church" feels very 3rd grade to me.

 

LOL but that is what most people think about Kim Davis. She has worked for the government for years. If she doesn't like her new assignment, what does she need to do?

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[webbles]

I've had this thought in my head for a while, and though it may be a little off-topic--this seems as good a place to put it as any. 

 

If LDS leadership were to grant the asks of OW, there'd be at least one huge advantage:  Young teenage LDS girls wouldn't be required to submit themselves to questions about their "chastity" from a grown man.  Women could conduct the "worthiness interviews" for other women.  That would be a much healthier dynamic, or at least it seems to me.  

 

--Erik

I'm not sure that would happen.  If I understand OW correctly, they want bishops (and all priesthood offfices) to be gender neutral.  We would actually have the possibility for bishops to be either female or male.  So in the wards with a male bishop, we would still have men interviewing young women in the wards and in wards with a female bishop, we would have women interviewing young men.  Not sure how that is a huge advantage.  Maybe if we had 2 bishops (one male or one female) or something similar to that (such as giving Relief Society President authority to conduct worthiness interviews of females) but I don't think that is what OW is asking for.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Of course! There are millions of LDS members, so it means that "some" will feel harmed for anything. Some LDS feel harmed because the church thinks "measures that will allow those who are now here illegally to work legally"  are necessary. So your "some" argument is completely irrelevant.

Do you have evidence that a significant number of believing LDS feel harmed because the church doesn't ordain women?  Please give me significant numbers, I am tired of your "some"

 

and do you have any evidence that most OW fans truly love the LDS church? Kate Kelly didn't, see

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2434905-155/ordain-women-founder-kate-kelly-happier

 

 

Do what ever you want, but there are other topics that are far more important.

 

 

LOL but that is what most people think about Kim Davis. She has worked for the government for years. If she doesn't like her new assignment, what does she need to do?

 

It's difficult engaging you in conversation because you're all over the place.

Some day maybe you'll understand my point that it is inaccurate to make absolute statements like "no one is harmed" or "LDS women agree" as if there is a monolithic agreement among all people. So when you make absolute statements that are verifiably false it significantly reduces your credibility. So far you haven't caught on to this.

Your argument about Kim Davis is juvenile as usual. Apparently you can't distinguish between telling people to leave the "one true church" and telling someone who is unwilling to perform the legal duties of her government job. These are vastly different examples and I hope you can see that.

[TheSkepticChristian]

  Some day maybe you'll understand my point that it is inaccurate to make absolute statements like "no one is harmed" or "LDS women agree" as if there is a monolithic agreement among all people. So when you make absolute statements that are verifiably false it significantly reduces your credibility. So far you haven't caught on to this.

 

I will understand it if you give me evidence. What is the evidence that a significant number of faithful LDS feel harmed because the church doesn't give the priesthood to women?  By "no one" I mean no significant number, please prove me wrong.

 

 Your argument about Kim Davis is juvenile as usual. Apparently you can't distinguish between telling people to leave the "one true church" and telling someone who is unwilling to perform the legal duties of her government job. These are vastly different examples and I hope you can see that.

 

What is the evidence that most OW fans believe the LDS church is the one true church?

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I will understand it if you give me evidence. What is the evidence that a significant number of faithful LDS feel harmed because the church doesn't give the priesthood to women?  By "no one" I mean no significant number, please prove me wrong.

 

 

What is the evidence that most OW fans believe the LDS church is the one true church?

I've never claimed a "significant number" feel harmed. I don't know how we would define "significant." What I said is "some" people feel harmed. "Some" could mean 2 people or it could mean a lot of people but I don't know, which is why I say "some".

If you mean "no significant number" you should say that, because saying "no one" is verifiably false. Maybe you're catching on. Now you just need to decide to make the effort to be accurate in saying what you mean.

I've also never said that "Most" members of OW women view the church as the one true church. I'm done responding to you until you can converse responsibly. I don't have time to correct every single sentence which are filled with incorrect information. I've tried giving you the benefit of the doubt but now I'm going to assume you're doing this intentionally.

[TheSkepticChristian]

. I'm done responding to you until you can converse responsibly. I don't have time to correct every single sentence which are filled with incorrect information.

 

Look! I am willing to change my mind, I am asking you for evidence

 

 I don't know how we would define "significant."

 

Is there evidence that at least 800 faithful LDS feel hurt because the LDS church doesn't ordain women? 800 is about the size of two LDS wards, shouldn't be that hard. Cultural Mormons don't count. Please point to respected pollers, not some websites with profiles that we cannot verify.

 

 I've also never said that "Most" members of OW women view the church as the one true church.

 

but you said, "Apparently you can't distinguish between telling people to leave the "one true church"" 

 

It is becoming clear that you don't know what you are talking about. 

 

 

because saying "no one" is verifiably false

 

Not necessarily, it depends how you define the word "hurt" and what you think the cause is. Perhaps they are the problem. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ttribe]

Look! I am willing to change my mind, I am asking you for evidence

 

 

Is there evidence that at least 800 faithful LDS feel hurt because the LDS church doesn't ordain women? 800 is about the size of two LDS wards, shouldn't be that hard. Cultural Mormons don't count. Please point to respected pollers, not some websites with profiles that we cannot verify.

 

Wait, you demand statistical validity and precision to change your mind, but use a made-up "99%" to support your own arguments?  Yeah, okay. [/sarcasm]

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Wait, you demand statistical validity and precision to change your mind, but use a made-up "99%" to support your own arguments?  Yeah, okay. [/sarcasm]

 

Yeah, and he requires statistical proof for claims no one has even made. Straw Man master. I'm starting to believe he's doing it on purpose.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Yeah, and he requires statistical proof for claims no one has even made. Straw Man master. I'm starting to believe he's doing it on purpose.

 

So tell me why the OW movement is relevant? because the church hurts the feelings of "some"? LOL 

give me a break, there is no reason for me to take you seriously, and the OW movement remains a waste of time. 

I am far more worried about other topics. 

 

Wait, you demand statistical validity and precision to change your mind, but use a made-up "99%" to support your own arguments? Yeah, okay. [/sarcasm]

 

99% of faithful LDS women don't agree with or don't care about the OW movement.You really think that is a bad calculation? Okay  [/sarcasm]

 

The Ordain Women website according to the wikipedia, "As of May 17, 2014, the website contains over 400 profiles" 

What a sad number of active supporters, that is no movement at all. We can't even verify if they are really faithful LDS members. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Tacenda]

So tell me why the OW movement is relevant? because the church hurts the feelings of "some"? LOL

give me a break, there is no reason for me to take you seriously, and the OW movement remains a waste of time.

I am far more worried about other topics.

99% of faithful LDS women don't agree with or don't care about the OW movement.You really think that is a bad calculation? Okay [/sarcasm]

The Ordain Women website according to the wikipedia, "As of May 17, 2014, the website contains over 400 profiles"

What a sad number of active supporters, that is no movement at all. We can't even verify if they are really faithful LDS members.

Maybe because some fear a KK discipline.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Maybe because some fear a KK discipline.

 

If most believing LDS women (at least 95%) don't support or care about the OW movement, then why I on Earth should I care about it?

I am more worried about real problems.

 

 

Maybe because some fear a KK discipline.

 

So where is the evidence that a significant number of active LDS women support the OW movement?

 

 

A lot has happened since 2011. I would not be surprised if those numbers have shifted since then. At least a bit. 

 

Yes, they are probably worst now for OW movement. Believing LDS women don't have a positive view of the OW movement.

 

Edited September 19, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If most believing LDS women (at least 95%) don't support or care about the OW movement, then why I on Earth should I care about it?

I am more worried about real problems.

 

 

 

So where is the evidence that a significant number of active LDS women support the OW movement?

 

 

 

Yes, they are probably worst now for OW movement. Believing LDS women don't have a positive view of the OW movement.

 

 

He strikes again- Misreading the statement of "some" as being "a significant number".

You don't have to care if a minority is in pain and struggling. That's up to you.

[CA Steve]

 

 

He strikes again- Misreading the statement of "some" as being "a significant number".

You don't have to care if a minority is in pain and struggling. That's up to you.

He continues to reference a survey done in 2011 to support his assertion that most LDS women don't have a positive view of OW, which wasn't created until 2013.

 

It is not surprising his status is 'limited'.

[TheSkepticChristian]

He continues to reference a survey done in 2011 to support his assertion that most LDS women don't have a positive view of OW, which wasn't created until 2013.'.

 

Women that don't support the ordinartion of women won't support the OW movement. LOGIC.

If Pew decides to make a new survey, those numbers will be far worst for the OW movement,  you people should hope that Pew doesn't do it.

 

  You don't have to care if a minority is in pain and struggling. That's up to you.

 

but perhaps they are the problem, there will always be people that will suffer for anything, even for losing a video game. Real problems cause many to suffer.

If they don't like the church, they should find new one. 

Edited September 19, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Women that don't support the ordinartion of women won't support the OW movement. LOGIC.

If Pew decides to make a new survey, those numbers will be far worst for the OW movement. so you people should hope that Pew doesn't do it.

Again, believing LDS  women don't have a positive view of that piece of

 

 

but perhaps they are the problem, there will always be people that will suffer for anything, even for losing a video game. Real problems cause many to suffer.

If they don't like the church, they should find new one.

 

It's funny that you're invoking "logic". Women that don't support female ordination in 2011 = women who don't support Ordain Women in 2015. This is an assumption, not logic. I'd be perfectly fine with PEW doing another survey. While I would expect the support for female ordination to still be the vast minority, I would expect the support to be higher now than in 2011. We'll only know after a new survey is done, but citing a 2011 survey just doesn't cut it for delcaring how things are today.

Yes. Victims are always the problem.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

 Women that don't support female ordination in 2011 = women who don't support Ordain Women in 2015.

 

Of course, believing LDS women that didn't support female ordination back in 2011 won't support the OW movement. See the worldview backfire effect.

 

  I would expect the support to be higher now than in 2011.

 

No they won't, not among active LDS. The numbers will be worst.

 

 es. Victims are always the problem.

 

I can't play video games Sunday morning because I have to go to church, I feel sad for that, I am a victim. I insist sacrament meeting should start two hours later.

Edited September 19, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

I can't play video games Sunday morning because I have to go to church, I feel sad for that, I am a victim. I insist sacrament meeting should start two hours later.

 

You are trivializing the whole discussion about the Priesthood by using video games as an example.

 

And you are not following our leaders' example by telling them to leave.

 

“[W]hen it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and exclusively appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.”

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-merciful-obtain-mercy?lang=eng

 

"Millions of women in this church do not share the views of this small group that has come and organized this protest today," she said. "And some of the members feel this is very divisive as well. Even so, these are our sisters, and we want them in our church. And we hope they find the peace and joy we all seek in the gospel of Jesus Christ."

 

http://fox13now.com/2013/10/05/women-who-want-to-attend-priesthood-session-of-lds-general-conference-rally-for-that-right/

Edited September 19, 2015 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

And you are not following our leaders' example by telling them to leave.

 

They shouldn't stay if the Church and it's doctrine make them unhappy, that is not right and unhealthy. They are always welcomed to come.

Our obligation as LDS is to invite people, not to pressure them to stay.

 

I said, "If they don't like the church, they should find new one." "Should" is not telling them to leave. It is close enough. We may have OW supporters. Stop it.

 

 

You are trivializing the whole discussion about the Priesthood by using video games as an example.

 

but the OW movement has no respect for the church. 

[Bobbieaware]

For what it's worth, what follows are some statements from past Church leaders regarding the LDS doctrine that the faithful women of the Church will one day reign as exalted priestesses and divine queens in the eternity.

Women Become Queens and Priestesses Through Faithfulness

Bruce R. McConkie

Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them and are not ordained to offices therein, but they are entitled to all priesthood blessings. Those women who go on to their exaltation, ruling and reigning with husbands who are kings and priests, will themselves be queens and priestesses. They will hold positions of power, authority, and preferment in eternity. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 594)

If righteous men have power through the gospel and its crowning ordinance of celestial marriage to become kings and priests to rule in exaltation forever, it follows that the women by their side (without whom they cannot attain exaltation) will be queens and priestesses. (Rev. 1:6; 5:10.) Exaltation grows out of the eternal union of a man and his wife. Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, "Then shall they be gods" (D. & C. 132:20); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god. As such they will rule over their dominions forever. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 613)

Joseph Fielding Smith (Quorum of the Twelve)

It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses. (“Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1959, 5–6)

There is nothing in the teachings of the gospel which declares that men are superior to women. The Lord has given unto men the power of priesthood and sent them forth to labor in his service. A woman's calling is in a different direction. The most noble, exalting calling of all is that which has been given to women as the mothers of men. Women do not hold the priesthood, but if they are faithful and true, they will become priestesses and queens in the kingdom of God, and that implies that they will be given authority. The women do not hold the priesthood with their husbands, but they do reap the benefits coming from that priesthood. (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:178)

John Taylor (President)

God expects me to talk plainly.... And while he has called us to high privileges, to thrones and principalities and dominions, and to be saviors on Mount Zion, and to be kings and priests unto God, and our wives, queens and priestesses unto their husbands, while God has ordained us for this, in the name of Israel's God we will try and carry it out. (Journal of Discourses, 22:311, August 28, 1881)

Joseph F. Smith (President)

Some of you will understand when I tell you that some of these good women who have passed beyond have actually been anointed queens and priestesses unto God and unto their husbands, to continue their work and to be the mothers of spirits in the world to come. The world does not understand this—they cannot receive it—they do not know what it means, and it is sometimes hard for those who ought to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gospel—even for some of us, to comprehend, but it is true. (Gospel Doctrine, p.461)

James E. Talmage (Quorum of the Twelve)

Woman shall yet come to her own, exercising her rights and her privileges as a sanctified investiture which none shall dare profane. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God. ("The Eternity of Sex." Young Woman's Journal 25 (1914): 602-3)

Melvin J. Ballard (Quorum of the Twelve)

Whatever disappointments may come, still be true to him and I promise you, in the name of the Lord, that if not in time, in eternity, you shall have like honors and glory and privilege. If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God. And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever. (Conference Report, October 1934, p.121)

If what the above brethren say is true, it's got to be one of the supreme ironies of all time that the very women who are pressing for ordination to the all-male priesthood are,going to loose the opportunity to become priestesses and queens in eternity because of their rebellion on earth.

[readstoomuch]

It is true that 90-95% of women in the surveys we have don`t want ordination in the Church.  Those numbers would probably change over time.  In my own thoughts about my daughter I don`t know why she is so adamant that the 5% need to make sure that it happens.  There does seem to be somewhat of a thought in her mind that the others just don`t understand.  Sort of like OW are surrogates for what the greater good should be.  The 95% would change their minds if they only knew the issues.  

 

No one should be encouraged leave the Church, no matter what the cause.  It is true that some have to leave or be excommunicated because of the vocal nature of their disaffection.  My daughter no longer goes to Church.  The Church is not as important as the issue of female ordination or so it seems to me.  The lack of activity in the Church or whether the OW advocate believes in the truth claims of the Church are a recurring theme I have seen.  

 

The book Women at Church is  an example of the arguments about ordination from a faithful perspective. It also addresses that women have issues about the Church, even if they don`t want to change ordination.  I think any issues need to be thought about and Women at Church helped me understand and gave me some ideas about women issues.  

 

As far as ordination, I don`t think I would be for that.  I could see there being certain responsibilities that women would have as directed by those with that key.  My thought is perhaps in setting apart for callings when the auxiliary president has chosen and had individuals approved.  Another would be in blessing the mother during labor and even a "welcome to the fold of God" blessing for the new baby.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

Women are able to give their husband a blessing during the 2nd anointing, but very few people get to experience the 2nd anointing.

[Russell C McGregor]

 

 

Good. Then if you accept that not everyone is a liar (meaning that there is at least some truth to the harm experienced by some in worthiness interviews) AND you care about the harm that is caused, would you please explain why you feel there is "nothing" to the worries about worthiness interviews?

 

I'm glad that you so humbly imagine yourself entitled to interrogate and cross-examine anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

 

I've no doubt that there were, in the past, some bishops whose questions became overly probing. I also believe that some interviewees felt uncomfortable in such situations.

 

Mind you, feeling uncomfortable is a rather low bar for establishing "harm."  And I've even less doubt that those interviewees would have eventually recovered from such a terrible trauma.

 

And less doubt still that those who are trying to beat this up into a (1) significant and (2) ongoing issue really don't give a flying rat's derriere about the "harm," but are only interested in how they can exploit it to attack the Church of Jesus Christ and undermine the well-earned relationship of trust that exists between the members and the leaders. 

 

Is that clear?

Edited September 20, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Five Solas]

Why does "chastity" appear in scare quotes? Doesn't your version of Protestantism believe in such a thing?

And as you know, the scare-mongering about worthiness interviews (no scare quotes necessary) is a beat-up. As a professional demagogue, you of course need to exploit it to the hilt, but informed people know there is nothing to it. I suggest you save it for your real audience.

I put "chastity" in quotes because the word is a bit archaic & I wanted any readers not intimate with the LDS lexicon to understand I used it purposefully.  Example, the word "chaste" is used several times in the 1611 Authorized or King James Version of the Bible--but most modern translations render the source texts differently (e.g., "pure").   

 

As to being a "professional demagogue"--well, you got the first part right.  I am a licensed CPA, so that undoubtedly qualifies me as white-collar professional.  But whether I aspire to being a demagogue and/or could hope to get anyone to actually pay me for such activity--suffice it to say I ain't quitting my day job. 

;0)

 

But I am curious why you think I am such a thing.  Who do you imagine my "real audience" to be?  I don't post anywhere else besides the occasional update on LinkedIn and Facebook--and those updates certainly aren't on the topic of Mormonism.  Perhaps you mistake me for someone else?  Feel free to explain yourself, Russell. 

 

--Erik 

[Russell C McGregor]

I put "chastity" in quotes because the word is a bit archaic & I wanted any readers not intimate with the LDS lexicon to understand I used it purposefully.  Example, the word "chaste" is used several times in the 1611 Authorized or King James Version of the Bible--but most modern translations render the source texts differently (e.g., "pure").   

 

As to being a "professional demagogue"--well, you got the first part right.  I am a licensed CPA, so that undoubtedly qualifies me as white-collar professional.  But whether I aspire to being a demagogue and/or could hope to get anyone to actually pay me for such activity--suffice it to say I ain't quitting my day job. 

;0)

 

But I am curious why you think I am such a thing.  Who do you imagine my "real audience" to be?  I don't post anywhere else besides the occasional update on LinkedIn and Facebook--and those updates certainly aren't on the topic of Mormonism.  Perhaps you mistake me for someone else?  Feel free to explain yourself, Russell. 

 

--Erik 

 

Maybe I am mistaking you for someone else. Didn't you write "Mormonism 101" with Bill McKeever, anti-Mormon demagogue extraordinaire?