thesometimesaint Posted July 30, 2016 Posted July 30, 2016 SEE http://www.acts17-11.com/obedience.html SEE http://biblehub.com/kjv/ephesians/4.htm
BlueDreams Posted July 30, 2016 Posted July 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: I agree with that assessment except that I'm not sure about your conclusions that gay marriage and female ordination are doctrinal vs matters of policy. For a long time, the race-based temple and priesthood ban was thought to be doctrinal until Pres. McKay said it was a matter of policy. I figured you (and others) would. The quotes at that period were complex and vacillated in description between doctrine and policy. For example, Kimball in '63 stated about the ban "the doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory, I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation." (the quote is found in the book Religion of a Different Color. But either way both McKay and Kimball felt revelation was needed for it to change even if they felt it was more a matter of policy. My research into all 3 areas haven't convinced me that the doctrine of Marriage and who should practice such and female ordination haven't led me to the same conclusion. I've studied one more than the other (Ordination). Female priestly duties and authority, at least to me, have more flexibility to change but the changes I've heard suggested don't match up to me to doctrinal precedence. And in this the ban and the ideas presented by OW have had the reverse position for me. The more research I do into the ban and its justifications the more convoluted and holey it appears. Even my 15 yr old self could pick up that old justifications didn't make any sense and directly conflicted with other scriptures. In order to get there you have to make some major jumps in assumptions and ignoring conflicting events. Female ordination, as I've studied it. To reach the same conclusions for OW means ignoring a number of doctrinal assertions, conflicting history, etc. In short to general history, scriptures, and ordinances we have available personally points me to a different conclusion/expectation for the church. It's still a different picture than what we have today, but it's not the one OW had and also seems what is coming out more and more as people hash over research, history, and doctrine. I still haven't seen an argument that's convinced me that these 2 issues don't veer heavily into doctrine. It doesn't mean these can't change or shouldn't, just that it may not change as one envisions. With luv, BD 2
rockpond Posted July 30, 2016 Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, BlueDreams said: I figured you (and others) would. The quotes at that period were complex and vacillated in description between doctrine and policy. For example, Kimball in '63 stated about the ban "the doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory, I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation." (the quote is found in the book Religion of a Different Color. But either way both McKay and Kimball felt revelation was needed for it to change even if they felt it was more a matter of policy. My research into all 3 areas haven't convinced me that the doctrine of Marriage and who should practice such and female ordination haven't led me to the same conclusion. I've studied one more than the other (Ordination). Female priestly duties and authority, at least to me, have more flexibility to change but the changes I've heard suggested don't match up to me to doctrinal precedence. And in this the ban and the ideas presented by OW have had the reverse position for me. The more research I do into the ban and its justifications the more convoluted and holey it appears. Even my 15 yr old self could pick up that old justifications didn't make any sense and directly conflicted with other scriptures. In order to get there you have to make some major jumps in assumptions and ignoring conflicting events. Female ordination, as I've studied it. To reach the same conclusions for OW means ignoring a number of doctrinal assertions, conflicting history, etc. In short to general history, scriptures, and ordinances we have available personally points me to a different conclusion/expectation for the church. It's still a different picture than what we have today, but it's not the one OW had and also seems what is coming out more and more as people hash over research, history, and doctrine. I still haven't seen an argument that's convinced me that these 2 issues don't veer heavily into doctrine. It doesn't mean these can't change or shouldn't, just that it may not change as one envisions. With luv, BD For me, female ordination looks very much like the race-based prohibitions of our past: scriptural justifications that appeared to make it doctrinal yet, in the end, we dismissed them all. Gay marriage is interesting in that it is the intersection of homosexuality (an area where we as a church took a long time to nail down our doctrine and seem to have had a drought of revelation on the matter) and marriage (the definition of which has evolved quote a bit from the beginning our of scripture). So I am most comfortable letting the Spirit guide me through the conflicting messages I get from scripture and latter day prophets.
BlueDreams Posted July 30, 2016 Posted July 30, 2016 36 minutes ago, rockpond said: For me, female ordination looks very much like the race-based prohibitions of our past: scriptural justifications that appeared to make it doctrinal yet, in the end, we dismissed them all. Gay marriage is interesting in that it is the intersection of homosexuality (an area where we as a church took a long time to nail down our doctrine and seem to have had a drought of revelation on the matter) and marriage (the definition of which has evolved quote a bit from the beginning our of scripture). So I am most comfortable letting the Spirit guide me through the conflicting messages I get from scripture and latter day prophets. For me, scriptural justification for race-based prohibitions were extremely weak. It favorite a few isolated verses that didn't actually say what we wanted it to in the first place but assumed that it did based on popular assumptions. That assumption wasn't actually enough to lead to a ban as seen in JS. But we jumped to theological action in BY's time. Overtime we experienced some historical amnesia to forget that anyone black was ever ordained. So there's 2 really really large gaps in scriptural justifications to later practice....dismissing it, isn't really hard. My reading of scriptures didn't have to dismiss the scriptures themselves but our racist interpretation of them. Female ordination....not as simple. Though I do see glimpses of the answer in them, particularly in PoGP with Adam and Eve's interaction. As well as Huldah and Deborah. As well as some of our early history. But I don't think it's the picture a number are hoping for. I'm also ok with letting the Spirit guide me....but the answer, I'd probably take a guess, differs. And I think that's where I get leery of demands. With luv, BD With luv, BD 1
rockpond Posted July 30, 2016 Posted July 30, 2016 20 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: For me, scriptural justification for race-based prohibitions were extremely weak. It favorite a few isolated verses that didn't actually say what we wanted it to in the first place but assumed that it did based on popular assumptions. That assumption wasn't actually enough to lead to a ban as seen in JS. But we jumped to theological action in BY's time. Overtime we experienced some historical amnesia to forget that anyone black was ever ordained. So there's 2 really really large gaps in scriptural justifications to later practice....dismissing it, isn't really hard. My reading of scriptures didn't have to dismiss the scriptures themselves but our racist interpretation of them. Female ordination....not as simple. Though I do see glimpses of the answer in them, particularly in PoGP with Adam and Eve's interaction. As well as Huldah and Deborah. As well as some of our early history. But I don't think it's the picture a number are hoping for. I'm also ok with letting the Spirit guide me....but the answer, I'd probably take a guess, differs. And I think that's where I get leery of demands. With luv, BD With luv, BD To be clear, I'm not in favor of demands either as that would be counter to the spirit of Zion (was it you who phrased it that way on this thread? Or someone else? Either way, I think that description is the best explanation.) I think that time and understanding has helped us view the scriptural justifications for the race-based prohibitions in the light we view them now. Similarly, time and understanding may someday change our view of the scriptural justifications we currently use to explain our positions on women and gays.
waveslider Posted July 30, 2016 Posted July 30, 2016 19 hours ago, Gray said: Absolutely. Consider your position applied to other areas in life. "When we petition for healing of illnesses it should be on our knees, in prayer to the one who's plan we are trying to follow. If God doesn't heal us, then it means we need to re-evaluate if our petition isn't in conflict with God's plan. No need to faithlessly seek medical help." "When we want to go about feeding the poor, it should be on our knees, in prayer to the one who's plan we are trying to follow. If God doesn't feed them miraculously, then it means we need to re-evaluate if our petition isn't in conflict with God's plan. No need to faithlessly provide food to the poor. The Lord is in charge." Faith without works is truly dead. I think you are mistaking how God works when it comes to His church. It isn't a democratic process: "11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Ephesians 4:11-14 God has made it clear that he has his way of doing things. One of which is to come to Him in prayer, first and foremost: "And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;" Luke 18:1 "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Luke 21:36 I do agree 100 percent that works are just as much a part of it, but who's works are you thinking should be done? Our own Godless desires, or God's? I'm not saying to do nothing after prayer, but rather what the Holy Ghost directs you to do. Even the things we ask for in prayer need to led by the Holy Ghost: "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Romans 8:26 How much more then do we need to be led by the Holy Ghost to do our works, if we are to be led in what we pray for as well?: Do we need to steady the Ark of the Covenant, and die for it? Or do we need to keep God's laws, and follow things his way. How does protesting God's way of doing things not fit within the category of. "..... by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness.....," if it isn't directed by the Holy Ghost to do so. When I said this, I didn't mean to not do any works, but rather to do the works God's way, which starts out with personal revelation: On 7/28/2016 at 7:17 AM, waveslider said: When we petition for change it should be on our knees, in prayer to the one who's plan we are trying to follow. If God doesn't align towards our own views after such petitions to change, then it means we need to re-evaluate if our petition isn't in conflict with God's plan. If on the other hand such changes are warranted, the prophet will gain revelation to change it, in answer to those sincere prayers, just as we will know through our own personal revelation that it follows God's plan. If you do feel that the Holy Ghost is still directing you to go protest the church, after sincere prayer, then by all means knock yourself out. It isn't for me to judge, but the one who's church it is that you will be protesting.
smac97 Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 10 hours ago, James Tunney said: I think for someone who wants to change the church, there needs to be pressure from without. From polygamy to the priesthood ban to changes in the youth curriculum to deal with problematic history, all these changes were reactions to force from without. So, protests or actions where the outside media is involved are the only way to get enough pressure to change. Prayer is insignificant and useless as it doesn't work. You may not like the fact that the church appears to be a man-made construct when it comes to the change issue, however, mere prayer would not have changed the priesthood ban. The essay on the ban basically implies that God was never behind the ban in the first place. So how would prayer have helped to change the brethren from their misguided policy? Refusing to engage BYU in sports, media pressure, and protests seemed to do the trick on that issue. I'd encourage you to give matter a bit more study. I think you are substantially overstating the role of "pressure from without" vis-à-vis the removal of the Priesthood Ban, and are substantially understating the role of prayer and revelation. Thanks, -Smac
James Tunney Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'd encourage you to give matter a bit more study. I think you are substantially overstating the role of "pressure from without" vis-à-vis the removal of the Priesthood Ban, and are substantially understating the role of prayer and revelation. Thanks, -Smac I guess I will after your bald assertion, without any support?
smac97 Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, rockpond said: The sarcasm about prayer isn't needed. Well, I apologize. The sarcasm was not directed at you, but at people who appear to sneer at and have contempt for the efficacy of prayer (see James Tunney's post, as he seems to have little confidence in the concept). Quote I didn't discount prayer but I think you'll agree that the prevailing LDS sentiment isn't that one just prays for something but that one prays AND works toward the goal. Well, yes. But let's be serious here. We can't cherry-pick and decontextualize gospel precepts in this way. Kate Kelly protested against the Church. She trespassed onto sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, with the calculated intention to disrupt and distract from that sacred convocation. She publicly maligned her bishop and stake president. She sought to foment adverse public opinion to coerce the Church into capitulating to her demands regarding changes in doctrine (not unlike what Carol Lynn Pearson is attempting now re: pressuring the Church to disavow polygamy). She publicly demanded that women be ordained to the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." She encouraged her followers to "raise hell" in the Church. I suppose you can characterize these things as the sorts of "works" in which God wants us to engage. I cannot. I see the acts under discussion as perhaps initially well-intentioned-but-somewhat-misguided, but then they fairly quickly devolved into something I see as dark, manipulative and coercive, as attempts to usurp the role of the Presiding High Priest. As antagonistic. As plainly contrary to the form and function of the Restored Gospel. As antithetical to the precepts which will make us a Zion people. I admire those who, through fasting, prayer, faith, and seeking to discern the Lord's will, assisted in the bringing about the end of the Priesthood Ban. I do not, however, admire or honor or respect the repellant, hostile, apostate behaviors of some pertaining to the Priesthood Ban. If the limiting of the priesthood to men is an error, I want to know that. But how we come to discern that will matter. A lot. And we also need to be open to the very strong possibility that the gender-based limitation on priesthood ordination is not an error. Rebellion and antagonism against the Lord's servants is not how He wants us to behave, so I reject ad hoc the-ends-justify-the-means rationalizations such as what you are presenting here (above and below). Quote Aside from that, I've said my peace on the matter. I don't think any of the efforts by these sisters we've been discussing lead directly to change. Same here. Frankly, I don't think they will lead indirectly to change, either. Re: Kate Kelly, I am open to the theoretical possibility of women being ordained to the Priesthood, but I just don't think it's part of the Plan. Re: Julienna Viegas-Haws, she has no particular platform of demands, just a smorgasbord of complaints and accusations, so she won't be affecting change either. And Carol Lynn Pearson is publicly demanding that the Church disavow revealed doctrines about polygamy because she conducted a specious Facebook poll suggesting that some people don't like the concept. Not exactly a likely harbinger of pending "change," direct or otherwise. Quote But I do believe that they can help change hearts and minds over time (where consistent with the Lord's will) Unless, of course, what they are advocating is not "consistent with the Lord's will." Kate Kelly was supremely indifferent to "the Lord's will," as evidenced by her mantra that she and her supporters were demanding the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." Julienna Viegas-Haws isn't apparently interested in affecting "change" in the Church. She just wants to publicly disparage it and distance herself from it. As for Carol Lynn Pearson, she's publicly demanding that the Church abandon revealed doctrines not, it appears, because she claims to have discerned "the Lord's will" on the matter, but because she personally does not like those doctrines. None of these courses of action seem conducive to acting "consistent with the Lord's will." What these folks are doing, how they are behaving, just does not jibe with the LDS paradigm. Quote which allows the Spirit to further distill upon the body of the church. Well, yes. That can happen. Brigham Young famously said: "Every time you kick “Mormonism” you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it." I understand some parts of this statement. The Lord will use the persecutions against His Church to strengthen the Church. But that does not excuse or sanctify the wrongful conduct associated with those persecutions. A person cannot engage in apostate behavior (as Kate Kelly did), and then claim that she was doing the Lord's will because the Lord used her apostate behavior to strengthen the faith of the Saints. Nothing Kate Kelly did brought us closer to Zion. Far from it. She has been excommunicated, and has more recently been openly encouraging others to abandon the Church as well. I don't think these are the "works" the Lord has in mind for us to "help change hearts and minds over time." She is not helping bring us closer to Zion. She is actively working against it. Julienna Viegas-Haws has likewise become an opponent and critic of the Church. And Carol Lynn Pearson appears to be on a path out of the Church. I am saddened by all of these things. These are all intelligent, powerful women who could do much good in the Church. But I think they've become distracted by and have succumbed to the types of things addressed by Elder Cook here: Quote Looking beyond the Mark By Elder Quentin L. Cook Of the Seventy Focusing on the philosophies of men, pursuing “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal, and elevating rules over doctrine are ways we may look beyond the mark. We live in a world where the latest story, the buzz, the hype, the “new thing” is much sought after and then publicized throughout the world. Movies, television, and other media often celebrate heroic gestures, dysfunctionality, conflict, and sexuality rather than the quiet, everyday acts of sacrifice, service, and love that are so much a part of the Savior’s message and example. The wild rush to find the new often tramples on what is true. ... {Consider} the people described by the prophet Jacob during an even earlier period: “But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble” (Jacob 4:14; emphasis added). Today there is a tendency among some of us to “look beyond the mark” rather than to maintain a testimony of gospel basics. We do this when we substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration, or elevate rules over doctrine. Avoiding these behaviors will help us avoid the theological blindness and stumbling that Jacob described. I think Elder Cook makes some excellent points, including many which I should consider for myself. Despite my strong disagreement with their conduct, I wish these people well in life. I am saddened by their conduct, and I hope they have a change of heart and reconsider their positions respective to the Restored Gospel. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 31, 2016 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 56 minutes ago, James Tunney said: I guess I will after your bald assertion, without any support? My suggestion was well-intended. It was not a taunt. Thanks, -Smac
James Tunney Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: My suggestion was well-intended. It was not a taunt. Thanks, -Smac No worries. I will consider it.
Rivers Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 When I first read this topic title I though it said PREG Mormons. 😅
Teancum Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 On July 29, 2016 at 8:26 PM, JLHPROF said: You say that like it's a bad thing. It's a mixed bag. In some ways it is good. In others it is awful. And it times it can be insidious.
CV75 Posted July 31, 2016 Posted July 31, 2016 On 7/30/2016 at 2:35 PM, rockpond said: I'm not aware of anything in scripture to support or condemn their actions. Please identify the actions that you understand they are most known for in communicating their desires for Church change. Each one might be known for something unique from the others, and they may share some in common so there is no need to identify any of the actions with any person(s).
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 On 7/30/2016 at 9:29 PM, smac97 said: Well, I apologize. The sarcasm was not directed at you, but at people who appear to sneer at and have contempt for the efficacy of prayer (see James Tunney's post, as he seems to have little confidence in the concept). Well, yes. But let's be serious here. We can't cherry-pick and decontextualize gospel precepts in this way. Kate Kelly protested against the Church. She trespassed onto sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, with the calculated intention to disrupt and distract from that sacred convocation. She publicly maligned her bishop and stake president. She sought to foment adverse public opinion to coerce the Church into capitulating to her demands regarding changes in doctrine (not unlike what Carol Lynn Pearson is attempting now re: pressuring the Church to disavow polygamy). She publicly demanded that women be ordained to the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." She encouraged her followers to "raise hell" in the Church. I suppose you can characterize these things as the sorts of "works" in which God wants us to engage. I cannot. I see the acts under discussion as perhaps initially well-intentioned-but-somewhat-misguided, but then they fairly quickly devolved into something I see as dark, manipulative and coercive, as attempts to usurp the role of the Presiding High Priest. As antagonistic. As plainly contrary to the form and function of the Restored Gospel. As antithetical to the precepts which will make us a Zion people. I admire those who, through fasting, prayer, faith, and seeking to discern the Lord's will, assisted in the bringing about the end of the Priesthood Ban. I do not, however, admire or honor or respect the repellant, hostile, apostate behaviors of some pertaining to the Priesthood Ban. If the limiting of the priesthood to men is an error, I want to know that. But how we come to discern that will matter. A lot. And we also need to be open to the very strong possibility that the gender-based limitation on priesthood ordination is not an error. Rebellion and antagonism against the Lord's servants is not how He wants us to behave, so I reject ad hoc the-ends-justify-the-means rationalizations such as what you are presenting here (above and below). Same here. Frankly, I don't think they will lead indirectly to change, either. Re: Kate Kelly, I am open to the theoretical possibility of women being ordained to the Priesthood, but I just don't think it's part of the Plan. Re: Julienna Viegas-Haws, she has no particular platform of demands, just a smorgasbord of complaints and accusations, so she won't be affecting change either. And Carol Lynn Pearson is publicly demanding that the Church disavow revealed doctrines about polygamy because she conducted a specious Facebook poll suggesting that some people don't like the concept. Not exactly a likely harbinger of pending "change," direct or otherwise. Unless, of course, what they are advocating is not "consistent with the Lord's will." Kate Kelly was supremely indifferent to "the Lord's will," as evidenced by her mantra that she and her supporters were demanding the priesthood, and that "nothing less will suffice." Julienna Viegas-Haws isn't apparently interested in affecting "change" in the Church. She just wants to publicly disparage it and distance herself from it. As for Carol Lynn Pearson, she's publicly demanding that the Church abandon revealed doctrines not, it appears, because she claims to have discerned "the Lord's will" on the matter, but because she personally does not like those doctrines. None of these courses of action seem conducive to acting "consistent with the Lord's will." What these folks are doing, how they are behaving, just does not jibe with the LDS paradigm. Well, yes. That can happen. Brigham Young famously said: "Every time you kick “Mormonism” you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it." I understand some parts of this statement. The Lord will use the persecutions against His Church to strengthen the Church. But that does not excuse or sanctify the wrongful conduct associated with those persecutions. A person cannot engage in apostate behavior (as Kate Kelly did), and then claim that she was doing the Lord's will because the Lord used her apostate behavior to strengthen the faith of the Saints. Nothing Kate Kelly did brought us closer to Zion. Far from it. She has been excommunicated, and has more recently been openly encouraging others to abandon the Church as well. I don't think these are the "works" the Lord has in mind for us to "help change hearts and minds over time." She is not helping bring us closer to Zion. She is actively working against it. Julienna Viegas-Haws has likewise become an opponent and critic of the Church. And Carol Lynn Pearson appears to be on a path out of the Church. I am saddened by all of these things. These are all intelligent, powerful women who could do much good in the Church. But I think they've become distracted by and have succumbed to the types of things addressed by Elder Cook here: I think Elder Cook makes some excellent points, including many which I should consider for myself. Despite my strong disagreement with their conduct, I wish these people well in life. I am saddened by their conduct, and I hope they have a change of heart and reconsider their positions respective to the Restored Gospel. Thanks, -Smac I bolded your statement about Brigham Young. It says a lot. Persecution against the church led up to the end of polygamy. Persecution against the church led up to the end of the race-based temple and priesthood ban. Sisters speaking up (rather than staying silent) recently led up to some changes such as allowing women to pray in conference and the broadcasting/streaming of priesthood session to all locations. So, yes, if you consider those "kicks" than the church has been "kicked upstairs". I think the decades of tireless and sincere efforts by Sister Pearson cannot be underestimated in what they will accomplish in terms of kicking the church upstairs with respect to its policies and teachings regarding homosexuality. And, I agree, Elder Cook makes some excellent points. We all need to focus on gospel basics/truths and avoid elevating extremism/rules over doctrine. Amen.
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 17 hours ago, CV75 said: Please identify the actions that you understand they are most known for in communicating their desires for Church change. Each one might be known for something unique from the others, and they may share some in common so there is no need to identify any of the actions with any person(s). While I am not a support of Ordain Women, I thought that their "stand at the door and knock" campaign was a good approach. They went, lined up outside the conference center and asked to be let in to the priesthood session.
thesometimesaint Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: While I am not a support of Ordain Women, I thought that their "stand at the door and knock" campaign was a good approach. They went, lined up outside the conference center and asked to be let in to the priesthood session. Women can attend the Priesthood Meetings. What the OW movement wants is the right to preside.
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 Just now, thesometimesaint said: Women can attend the Priesthood Meetings. What the OW movement wants is the right to preside. No, they are not permitted to enter the Priesthood Session. They lined up to enter at two different conferences and were turned away.
thesometimesaint Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: No, they are not permitted to enter the Priesthood Session. They lined up to enter at two different conferences and were turned away. That is simply not true, any one can attend any regular church meetings. OW purpose was to cause a disruption which is antithetical to the purposed of the Church. BTW Women reporters are allow to attend the Priesthood Sessions of conference. Though for the life of me I see no need for any reporter of any sex.
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: That is simply not true, any one can attend any regular church meetings. OW purpose was to cause a disruption which is antithetical to the purposed of the Church. BTW Women reporters are allow to attend the Priesthood Sessions of conference. Though for the life of me I see no need for any reporter of any sex. When did that change occur... that women were allowed to attend the General Conference Priesthood Session? Because that was not the case when members of the Ordain Women group were trying to enter.
thesometimesaint Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: When did that change occur... that women were allowed to attend the General Conference Priesthood Session? Because that was not the case when members of the Ordain Women group were trying to enter. SEE http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2339864-155/new-policy-lets-female-reporters-attend
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: That is simply not true, any one can attend any regular church meetings. OW purpose was to cause a disruption which is antithetical to the purposed of the Church. BTW Women reporters are allow to attend the Priesthood Sessions of conference. Though for the life of me I see no need for any reporter of any sex. From the Deseret News: Quote “It is the hope of the church that the priesthood session will strengthen the men and young men including fathers and sons, and give them the opportunity to gather and receive instruction related to priesthood duties and responsibilities,” church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Tuesday in a letter to the group, "much the same way parallel meetings are held for sisters, such as the general Relief Society meeting. "It’s for these reasons that tickets for the priesthood session are reserved for men and young men and we are unable to honor your request for tickets or admission." Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586996/LDS-Church-responds-to-priesthood-meeting-request-by-activists.html
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2339864-155/new-policy-lets-female-reporters-attend That was AFTER the Ordain Women group tried to be admitted to the priesthood session. And even now, women who are not members of the press are not allowed to attend the priesthood session.
smac97 Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I bolded your statement about Brigham Young. It says a lot. Persecution against the church led up to the end of polygamy. It also led to the murders and other types of deaths of many Latter-day Saints. And tarrings and featherings. And thefts. And sexual assaults. And the literal expulsion of an entire religious group under thread of "extermination" authorized by state government. Are you suggesting that the people who committed all of these wrongs were . . . justified? That God approved of such things? The Church was "kicked upstairs," so those who did the "kicking" through violence and theft and hatred were doing what God wanted them to do? I guess I don't understand your point. Quote Persecution against the church led up to the end of the race-based temple and priesthood ban. Well, sort of. I am sure outside criticism played some part, but I'm not persuaded that it was a definitive one. Edward Kimball's "Spencer W. Kimball and the Priesthood Ban" does an excellent job in tracing the origins of the Ban, and also in identifying factors leading to its end. Quote Sisters speaking up (rather than staying silent) recently led up to some changes such as allowing women to pray in conference and the broadcasting/streaming of priesthood session to all locations. So, yes, if you consider those "kicks" than the church has been "kicked upstairs". I'm not sure what "speaking up" you are referring to here. I know that Kate Kelly presumed that she was the causative agent, but I have some real doubts (Correlation is not causation, and all that). There have been plenty of faithful LDS women who have been addressing women's issues in the Church, but who have not resorted to publicized Alynskyite tactics and rhetoric against the Church. In any event, I think the-ends-justify-the-means is simply not appropriate in this context. Imagine the mischief that mentality invites... Quote "Hey, honey! I've decided to abandon you and the kids for a year and travel the world! And while I'm gone I'm going to carouse with other women, booze it up, use marijuana, and pretty much sow wild oats all over the place. But don't fret! This is actually a good thing. The ends justify the means. I am doing these things because when I get back I will probably be excommunicated. I will then probably repent, and then re-join the Church, and our family will be back up and running, and we'll be stronger for the experience. So because there is a possibility that my planned sowing-of-wild-oats experience will eventually make me a better person and our family stronger, that means there is nothing wrong with it! In fact, God probably wants me to do it. To paraphrase Brigham Young, 'Every time you kick our marriage/family you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.'" In Alma 14 we read of an atrocity against the Lord's people by the people of Ammonihah (emphasis added): Quote 3 And they were also angry with Alma and Amulek; and because they had testified so plainly against their wickedness, they sought to put them away privily. ... 8 And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire. 9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire. 10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. 11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. An extreme illustration, but the point remains. I simply cannot accept the "ends justify the means" reckoning associated with disobedience and covenant-breaking. I likewise do not accept this reckoning as justification for using coercive, manipulative pressure tactics against the Church by self-selected groups within the Church. Quote I think the decades of tireless and sincere efforts by Sister Pearson cannot be underestimated in what they will accomplish in terms of kicking the church upstairs with respect to its policies and teachings regarding homosexuality. We'll see, I suppose. If she follows the path of Kate Kelly and Julienna Viegas-Haws, I'm not optimistic as to her. I am also not persuaded that we can or ought to use this sort of the-ends-justify-the-means rationalizations for inappropriate conduct. Governance of the Lord's Church is not to be determined by self-selected yahoos who disregard the role of revelation, who set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed, and who presume to make public demands for doctrinal changes to suit their personal preferences. Such tactics amount to a sort of "unrighteous dominion" that is incompatible with the form and function of the Church. Thanks, -Smac
rockpond Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: It also led to the murders and other types of deaths of many Latter-day Saints. And tarrings and featherings. And thefts. And sexual assaults. And the literal expulsion of an entire religious group under thread of "extermination" authorized by state government. Are you suggesting that the people who committed all of these wrongs were . . . justified? That God approved of such things? The Church was "kicked upstairs," so those who did the "kicking" through violence and theft and hatred were doing what God wanted them to do? I guess I don't understand your point. Well, sort of. I am sure outside criticism played some part, but I'm not persuaded that it was a definitive one. Edward Kimball's "Spencer W. Kimball and the Priesthood Ban" does an excellent job in tracing the origins of the Ban, and also in identifying factors leading to its end. I'm not sure what "speaking up" you are referring to here. I know that Kate Kelly presumed that she was the causative agent, but I have some real doubts (Correlation is not causation, and all that). There have been plenty of faithful LDS women who have been addressing women's issues in the Church, but who have not resorted to publicized Alynskyite tactics and rhetoric against the Church. In any event, I think the-ends-justify-the-means is simply not appropriate in this context. Imagine the mischief that mentality invites... In Alma 14 we read of an atrocity against the Lord's people by the people of Ammonihah (emphasis added): An extreme illustration, but the point remains. I simply cannot accept the "ends justify the means" reckoning associated with disobedience and covenant-breaking. I likewise do not accept this reckoning as justification for using coercive, manipulative pressure tactics against the Church by self-selected groups within the Church. We'll see, I suppose. If she follows the path of Kate Kelly and Julienna Viegas-Haws, I'm not optimistic as to her. I am also not persuaded that we can or ought to use this sort of the-ends-justify-the-means rationalizations for inappropriate conduct. Governance of the Lord's Church is not to be determined by self-selected yahoos who disregard the role of revelation, who set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed, and who presume to make public demands for doctrinal changes to suit their personal preferences. Such tactics amount to a sort of "unrighteous dominion" that is incompatible with the form and function of the Church. Thanks, -Smac You seem to like to read a lot into things. Yes, bad things arise out of persecutions. You were the one who brought up the BY quote that the church is only "kicked upstairs". I merely pointed out its applicability to the situation we were discussing. God will be the judge of whether or not Kelly, Viegas-Haws, and Pearson were justified in what they did. To borrow a Greg Prince-ism, nobody wears only a white hat or a black hat. Not Kate Kelly and not Brigham Young. There were many feminists and allies who helped bring the church to the point where it finally followed President Kimball's three decade old counsel to let women pray in EVERY meeting they attend. I don't discount any of them. As long as you continue to turn those who disagree with you into caricatures and exaggerate rather than seek to understand, this dialogue won't be very productive.
Recommended Posts