A Review of Recent Trends Re: Ordination of Women in LDS Church

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's inherited from Christ too though, so it is essentially different than the racial ban.

Jesus never said anything about banning women from priesthood. At least, not that anyone has recorded. 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The track record of the brethren for figuring out how god wants his priesthood authority delegated has not been that good.

Then you complain to God. I am of the opinion that part of the reason that the end to the Priesthood Ban came when it did was a groundswell of prayer about it. If God has a plan to give women the priesthood (and he might) then you are more likely to get results from prayer then you are from campaigning.

Of course if you do not believe in revelation then the best course of action is to realize the Priesthood is meaningless and distance yourself from those nuts. Sadly as most of those campaigning left neutral ground they serve the father of lies and he channels their outrage and controls them like puppets so they do what they can to bring disrepute onto the Kingdom of God and join all those other unhallowed hands that will not stop our progress and will receive their reward for a season and will eventually be despis d by those who flattered them.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Jesus never said anything about banning women from priesthood. At least, not that anyone has recorded. 

I'm not aware that Jesus said anything about ordaining women to the priesthood, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Jesus never said anything about banning women from priesthood. At least, not that anyone has recorded. 

But He did ordain people, and He did also say who should be ordained, and He never chose any women or instructed anyone else to ordain any women either.  Neither while on the earth Himself nor when He was setting up His kingdom again during the restoration.  

This is a huge hurdle for those who believe that God has always wanted women to be ordained and that it has been misogynistic cultures that have kept it from happening.

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not aware that Jesus said anything about ordaining women to the priesthood, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nor is he on record about ordaining 12 year old boys, but we do that too. 

And of course, we have examples in both the OT and NT of women in priesthood roles 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But He did ordain people, and He did also say who should be ordained, and He never chose any women or instructed anyone else to ordain any women either.  Neither while on the earth Himself nor when He was setting up His kingdom again during the restoration.  

This is a huge hurdle for those who believe that God has always wanted women to be ordained and that it has been misogynistic cultures that have kept it from happening.

But we already have examples of women in priesthood roles in the OT and NT. Jesus never said anything about gender being a requirement. 

[Russell C McGregor]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The track record of the brethren for figuring out how god wants his priesthood authority delegated has not been that good.

The track record of the brethren for figuring out what God wants has been vastly better than that of the ark-steadiers.

Including, but not limited to, the Sunstroke crowd.

[smac97]

So many people boil this down to whether the Brethren are in error in not extending priesthood ordination to women.  Some Latter-day Saints, having concluded that the Brethren are in error, publicly castigate them.  I think to do so in inappropriate.  I am thinking here of counsel given by Elder Oaks in a 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism".  In it Elder Oaks provides some very trenchant and sound counsel.  It's a long article, but worth the read.  Some excerpts (emphases added):

“I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.”

“I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as ‘the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.’  That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.” 

“My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as ‘the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.’ Faultfinding is ‘the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.’ It is related to ‘backbiting,’ which means ‘to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].’ This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.”

“Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid ‘evil speakings.’ (See 1 Pet. 2:1.) It tells us to ‘Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.’ (Eph. 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid ‘backbiting,’ ‘evil speaking,’ and ‘find[ing] fault one with another.’ (See D&C 20:53–54; D&C 42:27; D&C 88:124; and D&C 136:23.)” 

“We are given these commandments [against faultfinding and backbiting] for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to ‘grieve not the holy Spirit of God’ (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, ‘The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.’ (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.”

“Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings. As the prophet Nephi observed, those who succumb to pride and ‘works of darkness’ are on the way to spiritual destruction, ‘for the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man.’ (2 Ne. 26:10–11.)”

“President Gordon B. Hinckley said: ‘I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course.  What I am suggesting is that each of us turn from the negativism that so permeates our society and look for the remarkable good among those with whom we associate, that we speak of one another’s virtues more than we speak of one another’s faults.’ (Ensign, Apr. 1986, pp. 3–4.)” 

“Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that ‘the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.’ A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as ‘contempt for the truth.’ (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: ‘To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.’ (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is ‘a time to speak,’ and there is also ‘a time to keep silence.’ (Eccl. 3:7.)” 

“The critical consideration is how we use the truth. … A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.  Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.”

“One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times.” 

“The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: ‘The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.’ (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: ‘Mark them which cause divisions … and avoid them.’ (Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that ‘Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,’ and declared that ‘If ye are not one ye are not mine.’ (D&C 38:25, 27.)” 

“[T]his caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is ‘a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.’ (Eccl. 3:7.)”

“The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to ‘[speak] the truth in love’ (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.”

“Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: ‘Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.’ (1 Tim. 5:1.)” 

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, ‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’”

“A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not … it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness … [The Lord’s] servants are not perfect … [but] if we murmur against [them], we are working against the Lord and his cause and will soon find ourselves without the companionship of his Spirit.” 

“[C]ounsel against ‘murmuring’ is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.  Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.”

“So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are ‘sheep’ without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd? There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.”

“[W]e will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them.  What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: ‘It must needs be done in mine own way.’ (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.” 

“The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.” 

“Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.”

"There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female."

"The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well."

“A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.” 

"The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: 'If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.' (Matt. 18:15.).  This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present.”

“A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this ‘tell[ing] it unto the church.’ (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call ‘the law of the Church,’ describes this procedure: ‘And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.’ (D&C 42:89.)  Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—‘not before the world.’ This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.” 

“There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem.  We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.  A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.” 

___________

I think the Saints would be better off following this counsel than listening to voices of discord and rebellion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2015 by smac97

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's inherited from Christ too though, so it is essentially different than the racial ban.

Interestingly enough, the recent church essay addressing this very topic does not make this claim. The essay does not assert that Christ or any revelation is behind the restriction. Rather, the essay does the same thing as the essay on the racial priesthood ban and explains the historical context in which the priesthood was restored as being a context in which female ordination was not even considered.

Arguing that the gender restriction was intended by Christ because he did not ordain women (at least in the scriptural account we have) runs into significant problems when the church expands other roles to women that Christ never did (again, according to scripture). Christ never sent women on missions. He never allowed them to teach in synagogue. He never sang hymns with them. There is no record that he allowed women to pray for congregations that included men. And on and on. The new testament account of Christ's life does not teach against women's ordination any more than it teaches against women singing in the MoTab, praying in general conference, or serving as the sister missionary in your local ward.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Nor is he on record about ordaining 12 year old boys, but we do that too. 

And of course, we have examples in both the OT and NT of women in priesthood roles 

This is an a priori assertion for which there is no definitive documentation.

[Cold Steel]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

What makes you think they don't have the spirit of revelation?

Read their "revelations" in their D&C. In Section 164, the Lord gives this counsel:

Quote

It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God. ... If the church more fully will understand and consistently apply these principles, questions arising about responsible human sexuality; gender identities, roles and relationships; marriage; and other issues may be resolved according to God’s divine purposes. Be assured, nothing within these principles condones selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships. (President Stephen Veazy)

The more one reads, the more it appears that the Lord has adopted the values and challenges of the "progressive" world. Previous President-Prophet W. Grant McMurray explains how one revelation (162) came:

Quote

The words did not flow as if dictated, but were wrested out of my own encounter with the Spirit that had been working with me these many months. I wrote, and then in subsequent days I pondered the words, recasting them here and there as further clarification would come. Even as I present them to the church, I do so sensing that there is more to be said. But the same Spirit that leads me to write these words also compels me to invite the church to join in the task of discerning God’s will for us. I am not yet sure what form that will take, but I believe it is our next step as we continue the process of becoming a prophetic people. 

One of the things that impress me mightily is the confidence, determination and surety of our own church authorities. In their testimonies, they reflect no doubt, confusion or dissonance. They seem to be unabashedly convinced that what they say is true beyond question. I don't see anything remotely like it in the CofC's authorities. They look to the future and see only the hope of the returned Christ. There is no temple work, no missionary force to speak of; their dedication to the Book of Mormon is embarrassing. They have no concept of the keys of authority that we're given to the church, no eternal concept of families. And now they recognize same-sex unions (and even perform them)! They've removed every major element of the Restoration, and even the Book of Mormon is optional.

Joseph Smith once said that if people follow the majority of the Twelve and the records of the church, they will never be deceived. And the faithful RLDS are so embittered against the "Utah Church" that they would rather flail in the water than be rescued by the likes of us. 

The one event that rent the church the greatest was the ordination of women and their appointment to the Qof12. Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. If they had the spirit of revelation, all these things wouldn't be issues. That's why the keys are given -- to keep people from going off on their own as the RLDS have done. The ordination of women would have to be decreed by God, announced as revelation and openly published. Why people would want to circumvent that process and blame the brethren is beyond me. But by suggesting that the brethren could implement this change on their own shows me conclusively that they have no faith in that priesthood.

Recently one of the leaders of this movement was excommunicated after a number of warnings to cease and desist. So why didn't she? I think about things like that a lot. She's willing to cut herself off from all the blessings of the church and throw it all away. Joseph Smith said their was an order to Heaven. Women and motherhood and men and priesthood are all a part of that order. So why don't advocates address this in their papers and articles?

 

[carbon dioxide]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Interestingly enough, the recent church essay addressing this very topic does not make this claim. The essay does not assert that Christ or any revelation is behind the restriction. Rather, the essay does the same thing as the essay on the racial priesthood ban and explains the historical context in which the priesthood was restored as being a context in which female ordination was not even considered.

Arguing that the gender restriction was intended by Christ because he did not ordain women (at least in the scriptural account we have) runs into significant problems when the church expands other roles to women that Christ never did (again, according to scripture). Christ never sent women on missions. He never allowed them to teach in synagogue. He never sang hymns with them. There is no record that he allowed women to pray for congregations that included men. And on and on. The new testament account of Christ's life does not teach against women's ordination any more than it teaches against women singing in the MoTab, praying in general conference, or serving as the sister missionary in your local ward.

 

The records of what we have Jesus saying and doing are very limited.  In my opinion the restriction of women getting the priesthood goes back to Adam and Eve and the conditions placed upon them after the fall and will remain until the end of the world.  I also interpret the statement by Paul as rendered in the JST to restrict women from the priesthood.

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."

If women do not have the priesthood, they can't rule in the Church.  One would need the priesthood to rule in the Church. 

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

The records of what we have Jesus saying and doing are very limited.  In my opinion the restriction of women getting the priesthood goes back to Adam and Eve and the conditions placed upon them after the fall and will remain until the end of the world.  I also interpret the statement by Paul as rendered in the JST to restrict women from the priesthood.

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."

If women do not have the priesthood, they can't rule in the Church.  One would need the priesthood to rule in the Church. 

 

Your cite to Paul helps to prove my point. Paul also taught that women should not speak in church. Obviously, the current church doesn't feel bound by Paul on that front. Why should we feel bound by his other statements limiting women's roles?

[carbon dioxide]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Your cite to Paul helps to prove my point. Paul also taught that women should not speak in church. Obviously, the current church doesn't feel bound by Paul on that front. Why should we feel bound by his other statements limiting women's roles?

No.  The JST corrects that

KJV 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 speak in the church."

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."

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But we already have examples of women in priesthood roles in the OT and NT. Jesus never said anything about gender being a requirement. 

Not really. 

None of the examples I think you are referring to required ordination. 

 

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Interestingly enough, the recent church essay addressing this very topic does not make this claim. The essay does not assert that Christ or any revelation is behind the restriction. Rather, the essay does the same thing as the essay on the racial priesthood ban and explains the historical context in which the priesthood was restored as being a context in which female ordination was not even considered.

Arguing that the gender restriction was intended by Christ because he did not ordain women (at least in the scriptural account we have) runs into significant problems when the church expands other roles to women that Christ never did (again, according to scripture). Christ never sent women on missions. He never allowed them to teach in synagogue. He never sang hymns with them. There is no record that he allowed women to pray for congregations that included men. And on and on. The new testament account of Christ's life does not teach against women's ordination any more than it teaches against women singing in the MoTab, praying in general conference, or serving as the sister missionary in your local ward.

 

For most of those, we have no record of him doing those things with men either, we just assume that such happened (and they probably did).  We do have a record for how He handled ordination though. 

He specifically did not ordain any women.  There's just no getting around that.  During the restoration, He never commanded any women to be ordained either.

That doesn't mean that He won't at some point do just that.  This isn't an argument about the eternal evils of women's ordination.  It's an argument against the idea that the only reason women haven't been ordained in the past is because of sexism.  

During Christ's mortal ministry, and during the restoration, women weren't ordained because He didn't ordain any, and never commanded such. That is the scriptural record that we have on women's ordination.

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For most of those, we have no record of him doing those things with men either, we just assume that such happened (and they probably did).  We do have a record for how He handled ordination though. 

He specifically did not ordain any women.  There's just no getting around that.  During the restoration, He never commanded any women to be ordained either.

That doesn't mean that He won't at some point do just that.  This isn't an argument about the eternal evils of women's ordination.  It's an argument against the idea that the only reason women haven't been ordained in the past is because of sexism.  

During Christ's mortal ministry, and during the restoration, women weren't ordained because He didn't ordain any, and never commanded such. That is the scriptural record that we have on women's ordination.

Actually, the New Testament does record Christ singing with men, teaching with men in synagogue and sending men on missions. If you want to get silly, it also records Christ riding in boats with men but never with women. How to get around those facts? Simple. Either the record is incomplete or the people were simply not ready for additional light. I believe the same is true for women's ordination. But for this argument, I'm happy to concede that Christ has not revealed that women should be ordained, if you can concede that He has not said anything against it. You previously argued that a silent NT record counsels against ordination (i.e, the gender restriction "is inherited from Christ"). Are you now backtracking from that?

Edited December 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an a priori assertion for which there is no definitive documentation.

We have definitive documentation for female prophets and a female deacon. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Cold Steel said:

Read their "revelations" in their D&C. In Section 164, the Lord gives this counsel:

The more one reads, the more it appears that the Lord has adopted the values and challenges of the "progressive" world. Previous President-Prophet W. Grant McMurray explains how one revelation (162) came:

One of the things that impress me mightily is the confidence, determination and surety of our own church authorities. In their testimonies, they reflect no doubt, confusion or dissonance. They seem to be unabashedly convinced that what they say is true beyond question. I don't see anything remotely like it in the CofC's authorities. They look to the future and see only the hope of the returned Christ. There is no temple work, no missionary force to speak of; their dedication to the Book of Mormon is embarrassing. They have no concept of the keys of authority that we're given to the church, no eternal concept of families. And now they recognize same-sex unions (and even perform them)! They've removed every major element of the Restoration, and even the Book of Mormon is optional.

Joseph Smith once said that if people follow the majority of the Twelve and the records of the church, they will never be deceived. And the faithful RLDS are so embittered against the "Utah Church" that they would rather flail in the water than be rescued by the likes of us. 

The one event that rent the church the greatest was the ordination of women and their appointment to the Qof12. Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. If they had the spirit of revelation, all these things wouldn't be issues. That's why the keys are given -- to keep people from going off on their own as the RLDS have done. The ordination of women would have to be decreed by God, announced as revelation and openly published. Why people would want to circumvent that process and blame the brethren is beyond me. But by suggesting that the brethren could implement this change on their own shows me conclusively that they have no faith in that priesthood.

Recently one of the leaders of this movement was excommunicated after a number of warnings to cease and desist. So why didn't she? I think about things like that a lot. She's willing to cut herself off from all the blessings of the church and throw it all away. Joseph Smith said their was an order to Heaven. Women and motherhood and men and priesthood are all a part of that order. So why don't advocates address this in their papers and articles?

 

By comparison, there have been no direct word for word revelations in the LDS church for more than 100 years. Can we really complain about the wording of their revelations?

Would their revelations be more impressive to you if they adopted the values and challenges of the conservative world?

I have not seen any evidence that the CofC members are embittered. If this were directed at Mormons it would rightly be considered anti-Mormon rhetoric. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not really. 

None of the examples I think you are referring to required ordination. 

 

This is great news. We can stop requiring priesthood ordination for both prophets and deacons. 

[Russell C McGregor]

9 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Actually, the New Testament does record Christ singing with men, teaching with men in synagogue and sending men on missions. If you want to get silly, it also records Christ riding in boats with men but never with women. How to get around those facts? Simple. Either the record is incomplete or the people were simply not ready for additional light. I believe the same is true for women's ordination. But for this argument, I'm happy to concede that Christ has not revealed that women should be ordained, if you can concede that He has not said anything against it. You previously argued that a silent NT record counsels against ordination (i.e, the gender restriction "is inherited from Christ"). Are you now backtracking from that?

Ordination is fundamentally different from riding in boats.

Since the Priesthood is delegated authority, and since Christ is the one ultimately delegating, it is not the case that we can happily delegate His authority to anyone we like unless He tells us otherwise. Rather, it's exactly the opposite: we delegate His authority only to whom He explicitly tells us, and no-one else.

That's why a specific divine revelation was necessary to end the former Priesthood ban, regardless of its origin.

And that's why a specific divine revelation would be necessary to authorise us to ordain women.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

1. The majority of active Mormons still don’t want women to have the priesthood.

Not only that, but the percentage of Mormons answering "Yes" to the question of whether women should be ordained has decreased from 11% in the 2011 poll to about 9.15% in the more recent poll (9.9% in one sample, 8.4% in another).

 

 

LOL that is called that worldview backfire effect. OF course the Ordain WOmen movement is a waste of time, and the fact that women don't have the priesthood is not a problem. The claim that the LDS church is sexist is nonsense. 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Actually, the New Testament does record Christ singing with men, teaching with men in synagogue and sending men on missions. If you want to get silly, it also records Christ riding in boats with men but never with women. How to get around those facts? Simple. Either the record is incomplete or the people were simply not ready for additional light. I believe the same is true for women's ordination. But for this argument, I'm happy to concede that Christ has not revealed that women should be ordained, if you can concede that He has not said anything against it. You previously argued that a silent NT record counsels against ordination (i.e, the gender restriction "is inherited from Christ"). Are you now backtracking from that?

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that silence counsels against women's ordination. I'm arguing that Christ specifically not ordaining women argues against it. 

We don't know if He ever prayed with women because the topic never comes up. We do know that He never ordained any because when the topic comes up, no women are chosen. 

[Buckeye]

 

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that silence counsels against women's ordination. I'm arguing that Christ specifically not ordaining women argues against it. 

We don't know if He ever prayed with women because the topic never comes up. We do know that He never ordained any because when the topic comes up, no women are chosen. 

You're being inconsistent. The the topic of ordaining women does not ever "come up" in the NT. If I'm wrong, please show me where Christ specifically considers it.

If you're saying that the mere fact that the record does not show Christ as having ordained women means that the topic necessarily must have "came up," well then it makes just as much sense to say that the topics of "women serving missions" and "women saying prayers" also must have "come up" because the text shows that Christ did those things with men, but not women.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

 

And of course, we have examples in both the OT and NT of women in priesthood roles 

CFR.

Prophetesses ≠ priesthood roles or ordination. Women having the spiritual gift of prophecy does not denote ordination or priesthood roles. Neither does women leading into battle or serving as social leaders.

I would  love to see "examples in both the OT and NT of women in priesthood roles."