mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I was at a fireside one time when President Packer taught us. "If we [men] honored the priesthood like we should there would not be a woman on earth, much less the church, who would question why we had it."Agreed.And I do not personally know any woman who is a member, and NOT on this board, who disagrees with me on this.In my Stake, not just ward.
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 There is an issue because that's how it functionally works. Again - hypothetical nonsense. I've worked on many counsels in the church where functionally the women held great power and influence. I've even served under women in Scouting positions. Never in 28 years of church membership have I seen a women discounted or silenced because a man wanted to arbitrarily hold power over her. Even if I did I would say the man was not exercising that authority properly. 1
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 In Utah it is probably different Oh crap! Scott is gonna get you for that one.
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 This is another way in which we're different.Patriarchy is not the cornerstone of my testimony, nor do I see it as a valuable or necessary element of eternal socialization. I just don't see the need to put one person in charge when there should be a partnership, especially when that "one person" is always a male, regardless of their skill or qualification.Callings seldom have to do with qualification.Whom God calls, he qualifiesThere is no further purpose in my being here, have a good day
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Again - hypothetical nonsense. I've worked on many counsels in the church where functionally the women held great power and influence. I've even served under women in Scouting positions. Never in 28 years of church membership have I seen a women discounted or silenced because a man wanted to arbitrarily hold power over her. Even if I did I would say the man was not exercising that authority properly.So you're saying that the priesthood order is not set up to give leadership preference to the priesthood office holder over the priesthood (non)office holder woman? You can call specific situations hypothetical but they are possible because of the way the priesthood order is organized.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Callings seldom have to do with qualification.Whom God calls, he qualifiesThere is no further purpose in my being here, have a good dayOf course we've been talking about families and parenthood, not church callings. There is no need to designate one parent to be the head of the other. That is not an equal partnership. 1
KevinG Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 So you're saying that the priesthood order is not set up to give leadership preference to the priesthood office holder over the priesthood (non)office holder woman? You can call specific situations hypothetical but they are possible because of the way the priesthood order is organized. Hypotheticals are possible. What a revelation. But back to the topic at hand. The preference we are given is to serve and organize service. I refer to to D&C 121 again, which you have yet to consider in your hypotheticals. I'm also going to continue on the other thread... since we're arguing the same thing in two places.
jkwilliams Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 This is another way in which we're different.Patriarchy is not the cornerstone of my testimony, nor do I see it as a valuable or necessary element of eternal socialization. I just don't see the need to put one person in charge when there should be a partnership, especially when that "one person" is always a male, regardless of their skill or qualification.Nor mine. My testimony was always based on things I had asked and received answers to, and maybe it says something about me that I never asked about patriarchy until my crisis of faith, and even then not until my daughter asked me about it.I always saw my role as being the responsible party for decisions my wife and I made for our family. It was never about being in charge. I have no idea if LDS women will ever be ordained to the priesthood, but I don't think patriarchy is necessarily an eternal practice and doctrine.
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Of course we've been talking about families and parenthood, not church callings. There is no need to designate one parent to be the head of the other. That is not an equal partnership.The family is and was and will continue to be the ONLY church unit.The Godhead is Family and my goal is become a better part of that family of which my ward family and church family is a part.We are miles apart. No point in taking more time.Hope all goes well for you.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I have no idea if LDS women will ever be ordained to the priesthood [again], but I don't think patriarchy is necessarily an eternal practice and doctrine.I fixed it for you. Women were "ordained" under Joseph Smith but they were not "ordained" to a priesthood office. Besides, "ordain" back then didn't mean the same thing we think it means now
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) Oh crap! Scott is gonna get you for that one.No seriously.Where the church is mostly converts, Patriarchy is more of a chosen lifestyle.Where I live being Mormon and believing this is like being Amish.People rebel from beliefs they are born to and never choose.That is what is happening hereHere if people disagree with their church they walk.There are 47 others within walking distance. No family reasons to stay, in fact they are probably encouraging you to leave anywayYou have to actually believe to stay in church outside the Mormon ghetto. Edited October 27, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
jkwilliams Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) I fixed it for you. Women were "ordained" under Joseph Smith but they were not "ordained" to a priesthood office. Besides, "ordain" back then didn't mean the same thing we think it means now You're right. My mistake. I aim for clarity, but sometimes my aim isn't true. Where's Mr. MacManus when you need him? Edited October 27, 2015 by jkwilliams
Gray Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Note that “light and strength” refers to priesthood: D&C 86:8-11; 113:8; Psalms 27:1. And "life" refers to the purpose of priesthood (the power of God): Abraham 2:11. For this purpose our "life and the priesthood have remained" according to the order God established. That's one possible interpretation, but those terms aren't specific to just the priesthood.
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I fixed it for you.Women were "ordained" under Joseph Smith but they were not "ordained" to a priesthood office. Besides, "ordain" back then didn't mean the same thing we think it means now Keep up the good work 1
CV75 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 That's one possible interpretation, but those terms aren't specific to just the priesthood. In those verses they are specific to the priesthood, and that connection fits perfectly in the quote you provided.
Gray Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 In those verses they are specific to the priesthood, and that connection fits perfectly in the quote you provided. Those terms aren't normally understood to mean something as specific as priesthood, but that's fine.
Kevin Christensen Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Speaking of Mother in Heaven essays, Square Two recently had a very good one. http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleLarsenHeavenlyMother.html FWIW Kevin ChristensenCanonsburg, PA 3
CV75 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Those terms aren't normally understood to mean something as specific as priesthood, but that's fine. "Normally understood"??? LOL!!! As if the Lord didn't explain that "strength" means priesthood! "He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost." Would you rather understand the prophets as you "normally" do, or as the Lord has explained things to them? 1
Gray Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) "Normally understood"??? LOL!!! As if the Lord didn't explain that "strength" means priesthood! "He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost." Would you rather understand the prophets as you "normally" do, or as the Lord has explained things to them? What I mean is if you throw out those words in Sunday school, priesthood isn't going to automatically going to pop up in most people's minds. This is how you understand those words, and that's fine. If you say the words "oath and covenant", people automatically think priesthood. "Light and strength", not so much Edited October 27, 2015 by Gray
CV75 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 What I mean is if you throw out those words in Sunday schoolThis ain't Sunday School LOL
jkwilliams Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 This ain't Sunday School LOLIf Sunday School was like this, I probably would have left a lot sooner than I did. 1
theplains Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Speaking of Mother in Heaven essays, Square Two recently had a very good one. http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleLarsenHeavenlyMother.html A comment on this part:. "The archeological evidence is supported by the biblical text which also indicates that Asherah was widely worshipped among the Hebrews. The tree being her symbol, her worship was associated with holy trees and sacred groves, which are frequently mentioned as places of worship and covenant making in the Old Testament" Asherah and Asheroths were pagan objects/deities. Some wikipedia sources here and here. Regards,Jim
Meadowchik Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) A comment on this part:."The archeological evidence is supported by the biblical text which also indicates that Asherah was widely worshipped among the Hebrews. The tree being her symbol, her worship was associated with holy trees and sacred groves, which are frequently mentioned as places of worship and covenant making in the Old Testament"Asherah and Asheroths were pagan objects/deities. Some wikipedia sources here and here.Regards,JimYet if God is real, He and His Word preceded pagans,too, therefore a female Figure/Goddess perpetuated by pagans might possibly be a remnant of God-revealed knowledge. Edited October 28, 2015 by Meadowchik 1
filovirus Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Yet if God is real, He and His Word preceded pagans,too, therefore a female Figure/Goddess perpetuated by pagans might possibly be a remnant of God-revealed knowledge.I understood that as King Solomon brought in more and more wives and concubines from other kingdoms, they brought their pagan dieties with them. He allowed them to continue their own religions. Asherah was one of these dieties among the pantheon of the canaanites. I wouldn't jump on the Asherah bandwagon until we hear from a living prophet, which I don't see coming any time soon. I can't imagine us as a people erecting asherah poles outside of our temples.
Recommended Posts