Gray Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Let's not go backwards in the discussion. Please comment on the points I've actually made. Whether you read my points as literal or figurative, they describe the same truth. I thought I did comment on your point. Taking it that literally, to the point where you think the gender of the angels is meaningful, raises more problems than it might solve.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Interesting post on Daniel Peterson's blog regarding Kate Kelly's vilification of the new essays: There are many points in this 9:30-minute video interview where I would want to comment — e.g., I think it very debatable that gender-related wage gaps in Utah or elsewhere in the United States have much directly to do with “patriarchy,” let alone with Mormonism — but I do think that Ms. Kelly’s remarks (e.g., calling for “queer people” to be welcomed into full Church participation apparently regardless of their sexual behavior, and labeling the Church a “cult”) eloquently testify that she’s decisively separated herself from her former faith, and strongly suggest that she’d probably already done so prior to her excommunication: I also concur with this conclusion: As for Ms. Kelly, I wish her well. And part of that well-wishing is the hope that, someday, she’ll find her way back to the Lord’s Church. In fact, there could be no greater wish for her than that she would repent, humbly seek forgiveness and become worthy for rebaptism into the Church of Jesus Christ.
rockpond Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Interesting post on Daniel Peterson's blog regarding Kate Kelly's vilification of the new essays: I also concur with this conclusion: In fact, there could be no greater wish for her than that she would repent, humbly seek forgiveness and become worthy for rebaptism into the Church of Jesus Christ. From your Peterson quote: " eloquently testify that she’s decisively separated herself from her former faith, and strongly suggest that she’d probably already done so prior to her excommunication" That's an unfair statement on his part considering the Church excommunicated her. If we're going to kick people out (even for valid reasons) when they'd prefer to stay in, we ought to expect that they probably won't stay on "our side". Actions have consequence. In this case, both her actions and the church leader actions. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) From your Peterson quote: " eloquently testify that she’s decisively separated herself from her former faith, and strongly suggest that she’d probably already done so prior to her excommunication" That's an unfair statement on his part considering the Church excommunicated her. If we're going to kick people out (even for valid reasons) when they'd prefer to stay in, we ought to expect that they probably won't stay on "our side". Actions have consequence. In this case, both her actions and the church leader actions.Um, you seem to ignore the point that she apparently -- obviously -- wasn't on "our side" (your words; why did you put them in quotes?) even before the excommunication. And If you or others can intimate that the excommunication wasn't warranted, others are entitled to suggest that it was. Edited October 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Um, you seem to ignore the point that she apparently -- obviously -- wasn't on "our side" (your words; why did you put them in quotes?) even before the excommunication. And If you or others can intimate that the excommunication wasn't warranted, others are entitled to suggest that it was. I haven't and don't intimate that the excommunication wasn't warranted. In quotes because I don't really see us as being on different sides. But she did want to stay in the church. Church leaders excommunicated her. Peterson's statement unfair because she didn't make those comments before she was excommunicated. As I indicated... if you are going to kick someone out who wants to stay in, don't be surprised if they happen to turn against you afterward. Kate Kelly's impacts on the church (both positive and negative) are never more pronounced than right now. I know you don't like that but I think history will make it even more clear. Just as past excommunicated writers and activists have since been exonerated by changes in the Church that came after they were sent packing. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) I haven't and don't intimate that the excommunication wasn't warranted. In quotes because I don't really see us as being on different sides. Quotation marks are an indication you are directly quoting someone or something. If you are not, you ought not use them. It is putting words in someone else's mouth in the most direct sense. But she did want to stay in the church. Church leaders excommunicated her. Peterson's statement unfair because she didn't make those comments before she was excommunicated. As I indicated... if you are going to kick someone out who wants to stay in, don't be surprised if they happen to turn against you afterward. She wanted to refashion the Church to her liking contrary to doctrine and teachings. You know very well things don't work that way. Dan was right: She had already separated herself. Kate Kelly's impacts on the church (both positive and negative) are never more pronounced than right now. I know you don't like that but I think history will make it even more clear. Just as past excommunicated writers and activists have since been exonerated by changes in the Church that came after they were sent packing. Whether or not I like it is quite secondary to the question of whether or not it is true. It isn't. Edited to add: Dan links to a couple of prior posts of his. Here is one of them. As I noted yesterday, Kate Kelly, the founder of “Ordain Women” has pronounced the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unfit, untalented, inarticulate, unnuanced, cowardly, morally acquiescent, and conformist. Now, it seems unlikely to me that the Saints suddenly became inferior and inadequate overnight, just when Ms. Kelley was excommunicated last summer. Presumably, they were already low specimens of humanity even when she was still a member of the Church. ... So, I confess, I’ve been led to wonder why she was ever demanding to be ordained a leader among such a defective people. Edited October 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) Quotation marks are an indication you are directly quoting someone or something. If you are not, you ought not use them. It is putting words in someone else's mouth in the most direct sense. She wanted to refashion the Church to her liking contrary to doctrine and teachings. You know very well things don't work that way. Dan was right: She had already separated herself. Whether or not I like it is quite secondary to the question of whether or not it is true. It isn't. Edited to add: Dan links to a couple of prior posts of his. Here is one of them. I've stated before that I don't agree with every approach she took, nor every statement she made. But Peterson's "I told you so" based on statements she made AFTER being excommunicated is unfair. She has been particularly harsh in public statements since her excommunication. My point is: what did you expect after we excommunicated her? It doesn't mean that she separated herself before her excommunication. If Peterson wants to draw such a conclusion he needs to back it up. You'd expect that from me or anyone else here. Edited October 26, 2015 by rockpond 3
CV75 Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 I thought I did comment on your point. Taking it that literally, to the point where you think the gender of the angels is meaningful, raises more problems than it might solve. You'd have to go back in order to take my point in context. See post #54 (#98 might help as well) and then make a relevant reply. Articulate the problems you have with how Jesus came into mortality.
carbon dioxide Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) You can interpret any change however you like - as divine revelation, as a capitulation to evolving norms, or anything else. But what is keeping you in the church now? The church extended priesthood to black men and boys in 1978. Why haven't you interpreted that as meaning the church has become just a social club?I see clear indication that even before 1978 that blacks at some point would get the priesthood. This view goes back to Brigham Young. So I see nothing unusual or strange of what happened in 1978. The only thing that was not known is timing of when it was going to be given. Keep in mind, I would accept ordination of women if there was clear indication that this decision came from God. I would even accept ordination of non-humans if that is what God wants. I am just against changes made to appease people or groups or simple because society is changing which is what I would expect a church of man would do. Edited October 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Meadowchik Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I see clear indication that even before 1978 that blacks at some point would get the priesthood. This view goes back to Brigham Young. So I see nothing unusual or strange of what happened in 1978. The only thing that was not known is timing of when it was going to be given. Keep in mind, I would accept ordination of women if there was clear indication that this decision came from God. I would even accept ordination of non-humans if that is what God wants. I am just against changes made to appease people or groups or simple because society is changing which is what I would expect a church of man would do. Yup. Basically I'm against fussing over policy or doctrine simply because of the "optics." In some regards, the "optics" of Christ in His time were not favorable. In some regards the "optics" of God are not favorable. I'd say that optics alone make up at least part of the "great and spacious building." Substance, context, and a lot of looking "on the heart" must also be considered.
Meadowchik Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I've stated before that I don't agree with every approach she took, nor every statement she made. But Peterson's "I told you so" based on statements she made AFTER being excommunicated is unfair. She has been particularly harsh in public statements since her excommunication. My point is: what did you expect after we excommunicated her? It doesn't mean that she separated herself before her excommunication. If Peterson wants to draw such a conclusion he needs to back it up. You'd expect that from me or anyone else here. Personally, if I felt allegiance to the Church because I believed God worked within it, but was ex'ed because of "decisions of men," then I think there'd still be some element of believed God was still there, in the Church, working within it. And so, wholesale condemnations of the Church do not seem consistent with believing beforehand that there was something good in the Church despite the faults of men. I don't know, but my perception is that Kelly's actions seem shallow-minded. She seems to have approached the church as if it is only an American political machine and she, only a public relations facilitator. I grant that there could be more going on, but that is how it looks to me. There's so much good in the Church, because of the Church, for women. Perhaps looking from the WEIRD (Western; Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic--see The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt) perspective is not enough. Most of the world is not among our privileged class, generally speaking.
changed Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I also think it significant that the mechanics of having an Only Begotten Son (or Daughter) of the Mother in a mortal, telestial world make the female conferral of priesthood authority impossible.Sorry, not following you? Can you please elaborate?
CV75 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Sorry, not following you? Can you please elaborate?Please see post #54 (#98 might help as well).
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 The thing I do like about this essay is the way women's participation is very active in the priesthood. They are not merely receivers of the blessings but they are practitioners of priesthood power and authority in their ministry. The thing that is confusing to me is that women have the authority, the power, and are even able to preside in certain areas but the distinction is made that "priesthood office" is not conferred and "keys" are not given. But what is a key, except the authority to direct the work of the priesthood. If a RS president presides over the relief society, and women exercise the power and authority of the priesthood, then how is she not exercising a key when she assigns visiting teaching and serves the needy. What value is a priesthood office if women exercise the same authority without office? To me this feels like double speak. "Women, you have power and authority but not really. But be happy with what you've got." I think the church has opened the door to many interesting conversations that are worth having. 2
DBMormon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/10/turning-the-key-to-you/ three LDS Sisters give their two cents. This episode has a lot of historical context. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/10/turning-the-key-to-you/ three LDS Sisters give their two cents. This episode has a lot of historical context.Sounds like a great listen for my drive home. Thanks for sharing.
CV75 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 The thing I do like about this essay is the way women's participation is very active in the priesthood. They are not merely receivers of the blessings but they are practitioners of priesthood power and authority in their ministry. The thing that is confusing to me is that women have the authority, the power, and are even able to preside in certain areas but the distinction is made that "priesthood office" is not conferred and "keys" are not given. But what is a key, except the authority to direct the work of the priesthood. If a RS president presides over the relief society, and women exercise the power and authority of the priesthood, then how is she not exercising a key when she assigns visiting teaching and serves the needy. What value is a priesthood office if women exercise the same authority without office? To me this feels like double speak. "Women, you have power and authority but not really. But be happy with what you've got." I think the church has opened the door to many interesting conversations that are worth having.Priesthood is the power of God. This power is simply shared with mortal men and women in different ways according to how they are called upon to use it. It can be conferred (keys), ordained (office), endowed (temple), delegated (assignments and callings), etc. The rights to the Priesthood can also be inherited (Abraham, Aaron, and so forth -- "through the fathers"; Christ the Son from His Father). Elder Oaks explained that women preside in their callings under delegated authority. The value of priesthood office is its role in establishing order and governance in the earthly kingdom. I explained to you why women cannot confer it or keys (and for one to confer, it must be conferred upon him) in post #54. Do you have any questions about that?
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) Priesthood is the power of God. This power is simply shared with mortal men and women in different ways according to how they are called upon to use it. It can be conferred (keys), ordained (office), endowed (temple), delegated (assignments and callings), etc. The rights to the Priesthood can also be inherited (Abraham, Aaron, and so forth -- "through the fathers"; Christ the Son from His Father). Elder Oaks explained that women preside in their callings under delegated authority. The value of priesthood office is its role in establishing order and governance in the earthly kingdom. I explained to you why women cannot confer it or keys (and for one to confer, it must be conferred upon him) in post #54. Do you have any questions about that?I agree that the purpose of priesthood office is in governing. It's about an order of who is in charge; who has the power. Anything can be a delegated authority.In this system a seasoned RS President has less power than a 12 year old Deacon who still doesn't know how to tie a tie or tuck in his shirt. Edited October 27, 2015 by HappyJackWagon 1
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) I agree that the purpose of priesthood office is in governing. It's about an order of who is in charge; who has the power. Anything can be a delegated authority.In this system a seasoned RS President has less power than a 12 year old Deacon who still doesn't know how to tie a tie or tuck in his shirt. Nonsense. The RS President presides over all the women in the ward, their teaching, their service, their organizations. While a Deacon has the authority to pass the sacrament and clean the garbage from the building. Priesthood offices and callings are about service, not power in the common temporal sense. Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Nonsense. The RS President presides over all the women in the ward, their teaching, their service, their organizations. While a Deacon has the authority to pass the sacrament and clean the garbage from the building. Priesthood offices and callings are about service, not power.Who would preside over the entire congregation on Sunday if there were no M Priesthood, Priest or Teacher present? Would it be the Relief Society President or the Deacon? 1
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Who would preside over the entire congregation on Sunday if there were no M Priesthood, Priest or Teacher present? Would it be the Relief Society President or the Deacon? So let's get this straight... You are upset over women not being in charge of announcing the speakers on Sunday? For bonus points cite a time in the last century a ward was actually down to the Deacon's quorum and no High Priest was there to step in from the Stake. You spend more time being offended by hypotheticals...
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 So let's get this straight... You are upset over women not being in charge of announcing the speakers on Sunday? For bonus points cite a time in the last century a ward was actually down to the Deacon's quorum and no High Priest was there to step in from the Stake. You spend more time being offended by hypotheticals...The "order" of the priesthood is not hypothetical. It is set up to function in this way. It's not important how often it happens (which I would agree is rarely if ever). It is set up for the Deacon to preside over the ward before any female leader. To me this seems like a problem. You can view it differently if you choose. I'm sure the deacon would do great. 1
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Another reminder of how the priesthood actually works... D&C 121: 36 ...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. That kind of puts a kink in the idea that a priesthood holder's power over women is in any way arbitrary, or about domination rather than service.
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 We are training Deacons to take upon themselves the mantle of servant leader. Any man who teaches a Deacon he has power over women, as opposed to a calling that is about service to women is wrong. You are still in hypothetical la la land on this topic. Give me a real example of a man who exercises dominion and I will show you a man who has lost what authority he supposed he had. And that is solid doctrine.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Another reminder of how the priesthood actually works... D&C 121: 36 ...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. That kind of puts a kink in the idea that a priesthood holder's power over women is in any way arbitrary, or about domination rather than service.Right. We should only "exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men" in righteousness. And as long as we're exercising that control as we've been assigned or ordained to do then we are exercising compulsion in righteousness. I think everyone in the church could think of an example of a priesthood leader or father abusing this principle. It's inevitable because we're all imperfect. But that leaves the woman always on the outside of the power structure, only able to receive the abuse 1
Recommended Posts