Fiona Givens speculates that Joseph Smith gave Priesthood Keys to women?

[flameburns623]

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/21/mormon-founder-turned-over-priesthood-keys-to-women-says-deseret-book-author/

 

My personal observations, from an e-mail sent to a friend:

The Givens are, jointly, two of the most important of the LDS Newpologists, those striking a new tone in Mormon apologetics. 

 

If Fiona Givens can persuade the LDS General Authorities and Apostles of this thesis, women's ordination in the SLC Mormon Church could emerge within a half-generation.

 

The danger is that she will find herself excommunicated, as have other women and men who have explored this issue. 

 

Contemporary Mormonism has hitched it's buggy to looking more like an Evangelical Protestant Church, not like a Christian Science Church with it's Father-Mother God: and not like liberal Protestantism, with it's speculative Divine Feminine theology. 

 

My concern is that liberal theology does not flourish. It does not inspire zeal or devotion, it does not draw nor hold it's membership, and those who stay don't even breed enough offspring to replenish itself.

 

In the 1960's, Vatican II and 'Honest to God' and "Death of God" and the "Dutch Catechism" and similar movements tried to make Christianity relevant to the baby boom generation, assumed to be outgrowing old forms of religious expression.

 

The upshot of that was that both Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations experienced a contractiin of bith active memership and of wealth and influence.

 

Meanwhile, and contrary to expectations, Evangelicals experienced an explosion of popularity, growth, and influence, culminating in the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980's. 

 

The LDS Church, which began in the 1950's to model and to market itself as a variant on Evangelicalism, was a beneficiary of that trend.

 

Incidentally, history may be experiencing an echo of that period: some trend-watchers are suggesting that while some Evangelical churches are languishing, others are still growing (at an admittedly slower pace); while mainstream liberal and progressive ecclesial communities are hemorrhaging membership. 

 

And Fiona Givens is indeed trodding on dicey ground. I worry that, despite the good work she and her husband are doung on behalf of people like myself, speculative work of this sort could leaf to negative consequences.

 

Thoughts on the article or my musings here? 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

.................................................................................................

Contemporary Mormonism has hitched it's buggy to looking more like an Evangelical Protestant Church, not like a Christian Science Church with it's Father-Mother God: and not like liberal Protestantism, with it's speculative Divine Feminine theology. 

 

...................................................................................

The LDS Church, which began in the 1950's to model and to market itself as a variant on Evangelicalism, was a beneficiary of that trend.

 

.........................................................................................

I see nothing in LDS theory or practice which is similar to evangelicalism (certainly not the model for Mormonism).  As to Fiona Givens, she is clearly brilliant, and I love her British accent.  However, much of what she says sounds like she is channeling Khalil Gibran.  For example, Gibran: "Much of your pain is self-chosen.  It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self."

[flameburns623]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see nothing in LDS theory or practice which is similar to evangelicalism (certainly not the model for Mormonism).  As to Fiona Givens, she is clearly brilliant, and I love her British accent.  However, much of what she says sounds like she is channeling Khalil Gibran.  For example, Gibran: "Much of your pain is self-chosen.  It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self."

Have you attended many Evangelical services? Looked at their Sunday School quarterlies or read much of their popular material? 

Did you ever notice the respectful way the Scripture is quoted, and quoted extensively?

Did you notice that Mormons, like traditional Evangelicals, wear suits and/ or dresses? 

Use hymnals, accompanied by piano and/or organ? And sing music which is hoary with age?

HUGE parallels there. HUGE.

Very different from progressive Christian services, where a single, almost random scripture passage leads into a discourse citing a litany of secular academic and literary names, but which might carry on for thirty or more minutes without ever mentioning God or Jesus.

Where the Enneagram and/or the Labyrinth are popular tools for self-unfoldment. Where the pews and the pulpit may have been ripped out and replaced with well-padded folding chairs, arranged in a large circle. Where the music is likely inspired by Simon & Garfunkle, the Beatles, and Peter, Paul, & Mary.

Very different, as well, from those churches rooted in high liturgy (often conducted in an ecclesiastical language). 

Very different from Pentecostal worship, where many or most wear blue jeans and printed tee shirts; with a full rock band on the platform; and the congregants prone to interupt the pastor with outbursts of tongues or of prophecies, of holy laughter, of paroxysms of being 'slain in the Spirit', etcetera. 

The LDS Church is modelled on nothing else but an Evangelical church. It certainly bears no resemblance to a Hindu ashram or an Islamic Mosque. 

Kahlil Gibran, btw, is a favorite author of mine. 

 

[Calm]

I suspect it is more likely both cultures were rooted in the same Protestants tradition.

[Duncan]

I'll read the article but it appears you have to pay for it!!! I'm cheap but not easy

[CV75]

7 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Thoughts on the article or my musings here? 

I think “collaborative” is the key word here. “Preside” is another one, as used in The Family: A Procalamation.”

So, “Joseph intended the Relief Society to give women a role that was collaborative with male priesthood. “Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother co-preside” as in “fathers are to preside over their [the couple’s] families… Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their [the couple’s] children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” In organizing the Relief Society, Joseph Smith turned the key to the presiding women, not over to them.

This is old news, of course: “…the Relief Society and the auxiliaries organized later have always functioned and have thrived under the direction of the presiding authorities of the priesthood.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/the-relief-society-and-the-church?lang=eng

As far as traditions associating Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit, no priesthood keys are required for bearing witness of the truth or of the validity of priesthood ordinances. Such witnessing is actually a sustaining function, not that it is any less powerful, or divine, than that exercised through priesthood keys. So I’m thinking the Divine Feminine “don’t need no sealin’ badges!”

When we look at the power inherent in those who sustain the Lord's servants, we see that we can't have them (or what they offer) nor they us, without such sustaining in place; the whole system otherwise shuts down.

Edited June 22, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

I didn't pay to read the article either.  But based on the linked report there is nothing new here.

Joseph did intend women to receive priesthood keys but this referred to the temple.  And they began receiving them in 1843.  It had nothing to do with Ecclesiastical priesthood.

Joseph did intend for women to preside over the Relief Society.

The most interesting thing in the link is that vision of the Heavenly Family.  It deserves a thread of its own there is so much to discuss concerning its implications.

[carbon dioxide]

" 3)   Ancient traditions (and some early Mormon traditions) associated Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit. "  

I am not sure how one could support this.  Why would God the Father have a body of flesh and bones and his wife still just have a spirit body.  One would think that they obtained their glorified physical bodies together.  Perhaps one could argue some idea that the Holy Ghost is the first or highest spirit daughter of our heavenly parents like Jesus is the highest son but God the Mother?  I don't see how its possible.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/21/mormon-founder-turned-over-priesthood-keys-to-women-says-deseret-book-author/

 

My personal observations, from an e-mail sent to a friend:

The Givens are, jointly, two of the most important of the LDS Newpologists, those striking a new tone in Mormon apologetics. 

 

If Fiona Givens can persuade the LDS General Authorities and Apostles of this thesis, women's ordination in the SLC Mormon Church could emerge within a half-generation.

 

The danger is that she will find herself excommunicated, as have other women and men who have explored this issue. 

 

Contemporary Mormonism has hitched it's buggy to looking more like an Evangelical Protestant Church, not like a Christian Science Church with it's Father-Mother God: and not like liberal Protestantism, with it's speculative Divine Feminine theology. 

 

My concern is that liberal theology does not flourish. It does not inspire zeal or devotion, it does not draw nor hold it's membership, and those who stay don't even breed enough offspring to replenish itself.

 

In the 1960's, Vatican II and 'Honest to God' and "Death of God" and the "Dutch Catechism" and similar movements tried to make Christianity relevant to the baby boom generation, assumed to be outgrowing old forms of religious expression.

 

The upshot of that was that both Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations experienced a contractiin of bith active memership and of wealth and influence.

 

Meanwhile, and contrary to expectations, Evangelicals experienced an explosion of popularity, growth, and influence, culminating in the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980's. 

 

The LDS Church, which began in the 1950's to model and to market itself as a variant on Evangelicalism, was a beneficiary of that trend.

 

Incidentally, history may be experiencing an echo of that period: some trend-watchers are suggesting that while some Evangelical churches are languishing, others are still growing (at an admittedly slower pace); while mainstream liberal and progressive ecclesial communities are hemorrhaging membership. 

 

And Fiona Givens is indeed trodding on dicey ground. I worry that, despite the good work she and her husband are doung on behalf of people like myself, speculative work of this sort could leaf to negative consequences.

 

Thoughts on the article or my musings here? 

Perhaps she's more concerned with being right than being popular. 

Having said that, my understanding is that there are female evangelical pastors. 

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

Perhaps she's more concerned with being right than being popular. 

Having said that, my understanding is that there are female evangelical pastors. 

It feels to me like the mindset of thinking strategically about what we teach and how we teach has gotten us in the mess we're in.  It's far more important we openly discuss ideas and promote the best thinking than it is to worry about what might send members packing.  We may gain members but we'll cause all sorts of problems for later generations to deal with.  I'd say we're suffering from the effects of bad policies, doctrines, that were once promoted in the Church now.  We need to be more responsible than that. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'll read the article but it appears you have to pay for it!!! I'm cheap but not easy

It's available online: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V49N01_fg.pdf

In her interview with Jana Riess, Fiona Givens makes the following claims (emphasis added):

Quote

 

RNS: You write that “Part of [Joseph’s] reclamation entailed a restoration of the Divine Feminine together with a revision of contemporary conceptions of priesthood power and authority in conjunction with ‘keys’ Joseph believed had been lost following the advent of Christianity.” So are you saying that Mormon women had priesthood keys?

Fiona Givens: Looking at the inaugural Relief Society minutes and Joseph Smith’s whole mindset of collaboration, he was thinking of men and women collaborating in ecclesiastical and administrative roles. He uses the word “preside” quite consistently. He is turning over priesthood keys to Emma. There is in the historical record much to justify the idea that Joseph was helping to organize a female “order” to collaborate with the male quorums that had already been established, though women were never given administrative authority in the church as a whole.

 

I have not studied Sis. Given's article in detail, but her thesis about the "turning over" of "priesthood keys to Emma" appears to be almost entirely predicated on a single reference on page 40 of the Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (link here) (see footnote 57 in Sis. Givens' article), as follows (emphasis added):

Quote

Let this Society teach how to act towards husbands  to treat them with mildness and affection. When a man is  borne down with trouble— when he is perplex’d; if he can meet  a smile, an argument— if he can meet with mildness, it will  calm down his soul and soothe his feelings. When the mind  is going to despair, it needs a solace.
[1 line blank]
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order  which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed  to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God  and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence  shall flow down from this time— this is the beginning of  better days, to this Society

And perhaps also this reference (from page 38 of the Minute Boo, see footnote 29 of Sis. Givens' article) (emphasis added):

Quote

He exhorted the sisters always to concentrate their  faith and prayers for, and place confidence, in those whom  God has appointed to honor, whom God has plac’d at the  head to lead— that we should arm them with our prayers.—that the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that  they may be able to detect every thing false— as well as to the Elders.

Contrast the above-emphasized claims with this statement by Elder Oaks in his April 2014 General Conference address, The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood (emphases added):

Quote

Priesthood keys direct women as well as men, and priesthood ordinances and priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.

...

The understanding we seek begins with an understanding of the keys of the priesthood. “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth.” Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function.

...

In that notable address, President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said, “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.” He also said that the Relief Society “[has] been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work which they do is done by divine authority.” And, of course, the Church work done by women or men, whether in the temple or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus, speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “[The Lord] has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the directions of the bishops of the wards … , looking after the interest of our people both spiritually and temporally.”

...

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

...

In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms. The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.

As I read Elder Oaks, although women can "exercise" priesthood authority and receive all of the blessings of the priesthood without actually holding the priesthood, the "holding" of "keys" appears to be a function of "holding" the priesthood.

Thus Sis. Givens appears to be contradicting Elder Oaks (obliquely, anyway) when she claims that Joseph Smith "{turned} over priesthood keys to Emma."

See also these remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added):

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church, and His Church is governed by and through priesthood authority and priesthood keys. “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 2.1.1).

...

Let us not forget that approximately one-half of all the teaching that takes place in the Church is done by sisters. Much of the leadership provided is from our sisters. Many service opportunities and activities are planned and directed by women. The counsel and other participation of women in ward and stake councils and in general councils at Church headquarters provide needed insight, wisdom, and balance.

It takes both men who respect women and their distinctive spiritual gifts and women who respect the priesthood keys held by men to invite the full blessings of heaven in any endeavor in the Church.

...

When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.

Again, this seems to be contrary to the claim of Sis. Givens.

I hope she is not setting herself up as a voice of authority alternative to that of the leaders of the Church

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 22, 2016 by smac97

[Duncan]

Just now, smac97 said:

It's available online: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V49N01_fg.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

he he he how about that?!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph did intend women to receive priesthood keys but this referred to the temple.  And they began receiving them in 1843.  It had nothing to do with Ecclesiastical priesthood.

I would like to point out the distinction between keys and power and authority (many tend to use these terms synonymously, and they are not synonymous). From a 2014 GC talk by Elder Oaks:

“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth.”

“With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president …only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance.”

“…President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said, “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.” He also said that the Relief Society “[has] been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work which they do is done by divine authority.” And, of course, the Church work done by women or men, whether in the temple or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus, speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “[The Lord] has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the directions of the bishops of the wards … , looking after the interest of our people both spiritually and temporally.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng&_r=1

[Jeanne]

I like the idea that we don't have to whisper the words..Heavenly Mother. 

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It feels to me like the mindset of thinking strategically about what we teach and how we teach has gotten us in the mess we're in.  It's far more important we openly discuss ideas and promote the best thinking than it is to worry about what might send members packing.  We may gain members but we'll cause all sorts of problems for later generations to deal with.  I'd say we're suffering from the effects of bad policies, doctrines, that were once promoted in the Church now.  We need to be more responsible than that. 

Right. A decision that results makes us more popular in the moment isn't necessarily good or bad. They can make a good decision that hurts activity numbers, or a good decision that helps activity numbers. The impact on the numbers is less important than the impact on people. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

" 3)   Ancient traditions (and some early Mormon traditions) associated Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit. "  

I am not sure how one could support this.  Why would God the Father have a body of flesh and bones and his wife still just have a spirit body.  One would think that they obtained their glorified physical bodies together.  Perhaps one could argue some idea that the Holy Ghost is the first or highest spirit daughter of our heavenly parents like Jesus is the highest son but God the Mother?  I don't see how its possible.

One thought is that personage of the Holy Ghost is one member of the Godhead, and the influence of the Holy Ghost is from both this Holy Ghost and another (or others), allowing the same term,  "Holy Spirit," to rightly apply to both. In this line of thinking, a larger Council of Gods would include the Three Members we commonly identify as such, plus others, including at least one exalted female personage in the role of Wife / Mother, who, in addition to the functions of the Personage of the Holy Ghost, also has a spirit that proceeds from Her exalted personage of element and spirit and fills the immensity of space, etc. much as the Light of Christ does. Thus She functions as an influence or power that we can call the Holy Ghost. Of course all Members of the Council are operating collaboratively and presiding together in a cooperative sense. Just  thought.

[consiglieri]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's available online: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V49N01_fg.pdf

In her interview with Jana Riess, Fiona Givens makes the following claims (emphasis added):

Contrast the above-emphasized claim with this statement by Elder Oaks in his April 2014 General Conference address, The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood (emphases added):

As I read Elder Oaks, although women can "exercise" priesthood authority and receive all of the blessings of the priesthood without actually holding the priesthood, the "holding" of "keys" appears to be a function of "holding" the priesthood.

Thus Sis. Givens appears to be contradicting Elder Oaks (obliquely, anyway) when she claims that Joseph Smith "{turned} over priesthood keys to Emma."

See also these remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added):

Again, this seems to be contrary to the claim of Sis. Givens.

I hope she is not setting herself up as a voice of authority alternative to that of the leaders of the Church

Thanks,

-Smac

It is clear Fiona Givens is closer to what Joseph Smith had in mind than the opinions of two modern apostles who are devoted to maintaining the status quo.

In other words, Fiona is talking about things as they were; the apostles are talking about things as they are.

They are by no means one and the same.

[smac97]

FAIRMormon has some useful resources on this issue.

For example, the Relief Society Minute Book (the same one relied upon almost exclusively by Sis. Givens for the proposition that priesthood keys were "turn{ed}" over to Emma), records Joseph Smith characterizing the Relief Society as an organization parallel to the priesthood (pp. 4-5) (emphases added):

Quote

Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such.

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.

As I read this, Joseph Smith references "Deacons, Teachers, &c" as an illustrative example.  I don't think anyone has ever used this entry to suggest that Joseph Smith was implementing a policy wherein women would be ordained to priesthood offices.  Rather, he appears to be recommending that the Relief Society create an organizational form which similarities to the priesthood organization of the Church.  

If Joseph Smith were really going to extend priesthood ordination to women, why didn't he just do it?  Why didn't he recommend that the Relief Society have deacons, teachers, etc. in it?  More to the point, why organize the Relief Society at all?  Why did not instead simply ordain women to offices in the priesthood?  Why is there no evidence or record in the Church of an authorized ordination of a women to a priesthood office?  Not just now, but when Joseph Smith was alive and organizing the Relief Society?

John Taylor, who was both a percipient witness in the early days of the Church and later the President of it, later addressed some of the confusion that had arisen in the Church over this issue:

Quote

Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It is clear Fiona Givens is closer to what Joseph Smith had in mind than the opinions of two modern apostles who are devoted to maintaining the status quo.

In other words, Fiona is talking about things as they were; the apostles are talking about things as they are.

They are by no means one and the same.

Added to this, this isn't about who has authority to say certain things.  It's about discussing ideas, and discussing what is found in history.  I honestly don't get the mindset of worrying when someone chimes in with research backed ideas that they are going to thwart the leaders of the Church.  The leaders may be wrong and the only way we can get it right, if they are wrong, is for them to discover they are wrong, or have others demonstrate their errors convincing them.  That's what happened with things like interracial marriage.  It'll happen again, and this ordaining women, giving them keys might be just the remedy we need. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope she is not setting herself up as a voice of authority alternative to that of the leaders of the Church

Scholarship is scholarship in my opinion, so just about anything goes as far as discovery is concerned. As far as "[seeking] learning, even by study and also by faith," those who do so to seek to bring forth Zion and the cause of Zion will press forward recognizing the right spirit (i.e. charity, not contention) and order (the kingdom's councils). Unfortunately, the undisciplined and/or the proud take good work and good books and put them to bad use.

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Scholarship is scholarship in my opinion, so just about anything goes as far as discovery is concerned. As far as "[seeking] learning, even by study and also by faith," those who do so to seek to bring forth Zion and the cause of Zion will press forward recognizing the right spirit (i.e. charity, not contention) and order (the kingdom's councils). Unfortunately, the undisciplined and/or the proud take good work and good books and put them to bad use.

In so many ways, the Mormonism of today is becoming similar to Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to discounting education and research.

I know Mormonism advocates education and now talks about learning Church history.

But as soon as somebody like Fiona comes out with an idea that might contradict what Church leaders have said, the immediate move on the part of some is to marginalize her.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Have you attended many Evangelical services? Looked at their Sunday School quarterlies or read much of their popular material? 

Did you ever notice the respectful way the Scripture is quoted, and quoted extensively?

Did you notice that Mormons, like traditional Evangelicals, wear suits and/ or dresses? 

Use hymnals, accompanied by piano and/or organ? And sing music which is hoary with age?

HUGE parallels there. HUGE.

Very different from progressive Christian services, where a single, almost random scripture passage leads into a discourse citing a litany of secular academic and literary names, but which might carry on for thirty or more minutes without ever mentioning God or Jesus.

Where the Enneagram and/or the Labyrinth are popular tools for self-unfoldment. Where the pews and the pulpit may have been ripped out and replaced with well-padded folding chairs, arranged in a large circle. Where the music is likely inspired by Simon & Garfunkle, the Beatles, and Peter, Paul, & Mary.

Very different, as well, from those churches rooted in high liturgy (often conducted in an ecclesiastical language). 

Very different from Pentecostal worship, where many or most wear blue jeans and printed tee shirts; with a full rock band on the platform; and the congregants prone to interupt the pastor with outbursts of tongues or of prophecies, of holy laughter, of paroxysms of being 'slain in the Spirit', etcetera. 

The LDS Church is modelled on nothing else but an Evangelical church. It certainly bears no resemblance to a Hindu ashram or an Islamic Mosque. 

....................................................................................................   

You are quite wrong, and are probably too young to realize where both Mormonism and evangelicalism come from.  They are otherwise completely unrelated.  Calm said it best:  "I suspect it is more likely both cultures were rooted in the same Protestants tradition."

The huge surface parallels which you see are based primarily on outward appearance, and not on the substance of each tradition.  The sunday school, conferences, types of hymnals, the ladys' auxiliary, etc., come straight out of old time Methodist tradition.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But as soon as somebody like Fiona comes out with an idea that might contradict what Church leaders have said, the immediate move on the part of some is to marginalize her.

The issue is that her interpretation of history is focused on historical facts but not doctrinal teachings.

You cannot look at Joseph's actions through a historical lens on its own.  You have to bring in the theology and doctrines that he taught at the same time.
Joseph's teachings on priesthood were far more complex than most members realize, and without understanding the doctrines he taught on priesthood you cannot simply look at the historical events and draw conclusions.

Joseph taught that "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood."

He also taught that in 1843 "2 Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church".  Meaning there was a higher priesthood still to be experienced.

So when he spoke of giving women priesthood keys at the Relief Society meeting in 1842 there is no reason to connect that with the previously restored ecclesiastic portions that make up the Aaronic and Melchizedek.
He was clearly referring to Patriarchal priesthood and the soon to be restored Fulness of the Melcizedek priesthood.  Both of which women were able to participate in.

Edited June 22, 2016 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I like the idea that we don't have to whisper the words..Heavenly Mother. 

I've never felt the need to whisper about Her.  We just don't know much about Her.  And we are not supposed to pray to Her.

There is a 2011 article in BYU Studies that may interest you: "'A Mother There': A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven."  The authors of this article make what I think are probably correct points about "cultural perceptions" within the Church that have led to "a 'sacred' censorship" about Her, but that claims "that the Church mandates silence or gives only simplistic portrayals of Mother in Heaven" are "mostly false" because "Church leaders and others in Church-approved venues have actually taught about Heavenly Mother."  Give in a read.  I think you'll enjoy it.  You may also be interested in FAIR's page on this topic.

I think the principal problems with discussing Heavenly Mother are as follows:

• 1) In the main, we lack sufficient revealed light and knowledge about Her, such that informed, substantive discussion about Her is not possible.

    Latter-day Saints sometimes seem uncomfortable with limiting ourselves as regarding what I think could be called "known unknowns."  For example, I have seen many discussions over the years about how many people will end up as Sons of Perdition, or why God has limited the ordination to the priesthood to men, or who Raphael was during his mortal probation, and so on.  We know about these things, but we don't have answers to them.  They are "known unknowns."  

    The existence of Heavenly Mother is, I think, pretty much an established, though still largely inferential, tenet of the LDS Church.  We are therefore left to guess as to the nature, attributes and - perhaps most controversially - the roles She plays in the Plan of Salvation.  Does She have a resurrected, glorified body (or is she the Holy Spirit)?  Does she "co-create" earths with the Father?

    I have my own thoughts on these and other issues relating to Heavenly Mother.  But I generally don't share them publicly.  I will share my thoughts with those over whom I have stewardship, but that's about it.  I will review what the Brethren have said and will leave it to them to define appropriate parameters for public discussion about this topic (which, as noted above, are probably broader than most Latter-day Saints currently think).

• 2) In the absence of revealed light and knowledge, speculation and guesswork and agenda-driven declarations (which are often, though not always, hostile to the Church) generally form the basis of most discussions about Her.  We Latter-day Saints take a lot of comfort in being part of a visible, organized Church that claims to be guided by revelation, by prophets and apostles, etc.  Open-ended, anything-goes speculation about a topic as supremely sacred as Heavenly Mother is just not our thing.

• 3) The topic of Heavenly Mother has been appropriated by critics and apostates as a weapon against the Church, and many Latter-day Saints know this.  So when some whackadoo posts incessantly about Heavenly Mother (not objectionable in and off itself), and then adds speculation about Her and declares the Church to be in a state of apostasy because we don't emphasize Her enought and advocates praying to Her and lards up his/her posts with a bunch of politicized misandrist feminist rhetoric against the Brethren . . . well, you can see why many faithful Latter-day Saints might recoil and such offensive things and decide to not discuss Heavenly Mother at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 22, 2016 by smac97

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

In so many ways, the Mormonism of today is becoming similar to Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to discounting education and research.

I know Mormonism advocates education and now talks about learning Church history.

But as soon as somebody like Fiona comes out with an idea that might contradict what Church leaders have said, the immediate move on the part of some is to marginalize her.

LOL I’ll save my unbiased comparative analysis between LDS and JW organizational approaches to education and research for another thread.

I don’t see the Church marginalizing her. I don’t see her contradicting what Church leaders have said, either. Some may opt to do those sorts of things on this thread for example, but not me…!

I see her as a theologian studying a religion’s history, and both theology and history are academic pursuits. Who would want to craft a revelation out of that? The best theological and historical pursuits should be divorced from subjective spiritual (or contentious) agenda. That is why using the best books requires us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” in order to derive any spiritual benefit from them (a discipline of a different nature).

How are you looking at the links, from an academic or from a spiritual perspective?

Edited June 22, 2016 by CV75