Women recieving the priesthood

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Well, you just answered your own question with this wonderful answer. You asked " And why do you say you would accept it before you've even read it or found out from God for yourself that it was scripture ?" Like you said, because of father. 

Just to make sure I am correctly understanding what you meant here, you were saying that you will accept anything the President of our Church would say is scripture as scripture based on the fact that he said so.

If only everybody else on this planet would be so easily accommodated.

Personally, even I require a little bit more than just that.  I would only accept what that man says is scripture if our Father also told me through Jesus AND the Holy Spirit.  I guess you could say I am kind of picky about who I choose to believe.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think was the reason(s) for the short-lived November 2015 policy? What were God's reasons for it, and having it only in place for three-ish years? 

I think the policy was an effort by the Brethren to address a difficult issue.  They formulated the idea of adapting the Church's longstanding policy pertaining to people from polygamous families to apply to people from same-sex marriage families.  They discussed it, they prayed about it.  They took it to the Lord, who ratified and approved it (somewhat comparable to how the Lord ratified and approved the sixteen stones idea formulated by the Brother of Jared). 

That it lasted three years doesn't really matter.  There are all sorts of revelations that have a limited shelf life.  Consider Matthew 2, where an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph and told him to take Mary and Jesus and flee into Egypt (to escape Herod).  He did.  After a while Herod died, and an angel appeared to Joseph again and told him to return to Israel.  He did.

Personally, I think the policy was fine.  It was the absurd and hyperbolic (and, to an extent, orchestrated) overreaction to the policy that created difficulties.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I made some comments about this back in 2018:

Quote

I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church.

Perhaps they could stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

And stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

And stop with the efforts to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

And stop putting the worst possible spin on the policy.

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

And stop working to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

And perhaps they could give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

And also give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

I genuinely question the sincerity and good faith of some critics and opponents of the Church who resort to overheated and caustic rhetoric.  I question this because these are the same folks who despise the Church and its teachings, and thefore would not seem to have a legitimate basis for complaining about people not joining it. 

I question these things because these critics apparently don't give two figs about the children from polygamous families who have faced a similar policy for years. 

I question these things because critics like to position themselves as being concerned about the welfare of children, and yet they then proceed to move heaven and earth to alienate those children from the LDS Church, and to publish declarations that the LDS Church hates their parents. 

Both the parents and their children are encountering this "overheated and caustic rhetoric," and are understandably perturbed thereby.  So I attribute much of the emotional pain and aggravation these folks face to the critics and opponents who have been screaming about it, and using "overheated and caustic rhetoric" about it, and instilling and maintaining and inflaming fear and suspicion and anger in children.

It sure would be nice if the critics and the opponents (and the members of the Church) just eased up and let the policy proceed.  No need to make things worse by alienating children from a community of faith to which they have ties, or about which they may have an interest.  Reconciling seemingly conflicting loyalties to a religious group on one hand and, on the other, to one's parents is hard enough without going online and being told over and over and over about how awful that religious group is, how much they hate your parents, how that religious group enjoys "giving the middle finger to the gay community" (as Brother Bear once put it) and so on.

In other words, is there ever going to come a time when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their own conduct?

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2021 by smac97

[Rain]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

After reading what you and smac97 said about spreading out some of the responsibility, I just called my wife, mom and mother in law. All 3 said no thanks🤣. They want nothing to do with priesthood callings. Again, something I never considered asking till 5 minutes ago. Nothing is easy as it seams.

 

Personally I want what the Lord wants to bless me with.  It is so weird that we always talk about priesthood duties as this great burden.  Like it is drudgery.  But there are great blessings that come serving and yes, some of those also come to the priesthood holder who served. 

Sometimes I wonder why so many are so so quick to denigrate priesthood responsibilities when clearly they come with so many blessings.  

So I'm not going to ask for it just like I'm not going to ask for specific callings, but I'm not going to say "I don't want that" either.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe it will probably happen.  I don't believe it will be from God because I don't believe priesthood is merely a function of God's discretion.  I don't believe continuing revelation can change the structure with any validity.
I do however believe women receive priesthood in the temple and in higher ordinances but that this is a different order of the priesthood from the Ecclesiastical order assigned to run the Church.  And this is clearly represented in them wearing both the garment and the robes of the priesthood.

But hey, what do I know.

It would not surprise me if there was a different order of the priesthood for women outside of the temple.  In fact would make more sense to me that women having it the same way men do.  If that is the case I would love more info about it from the Lord.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

Also, if the policy was a revelation, as then-Elder Nelson was at great pains to portray it as, then it shouldn't have been reversed and abandoned after only three years, regardless of member unwillingness to accept it. 

The same is true of the "Mormon" thing. If it was a revelation, as President Nelson has made clear, then the Church shouldn't be quietly putting in the handbook that it is "acceptable" to say Mormon, and the Brethren themselves shouldn't use Latter-day Saint or LDS as their primary way of discussing the Church or its members. If it's really a revelation, then heaven and earth should be moved to implement it. 

If I remember right, from the beginning Pres. Nelson said that it was acceptable to call members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Latter-day Saints.  Also, did you ever find where it says in the handbook that it's acceptable to use the term Mormon?  I can't find it in there.

Finally, isn't there precedent in the D&C for a revelation being rescinded because the members couldn't deal with it?  

[mgy401]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If it's not too much of a tangent, this has been a question of mine. If this is true, why do men (or, more specifically, I) need to be ordained and women do not? As I listened to Pres. Nelson describe it in his conference talk, women can use the priesthood to do all of the things I want to do (serve in and out of the church, bless and help people, lead in my family, etc), but they do not get to do all of the things I don't want to do (serve in church government). What does my ordination bring to my table? It seems to me that the only thing ordination brings to my table is makes me eligible to be called into Church government, but I don't want that.

I don’t know if this perfectly answers the question, but . . .

When proxy temple worship resumes, if you’ve never done it before, I’d encourage you to go to the temple with someone of the opposite gender; to do initiatories; to try as hard as possible to memorize (even if only briefly) the specific blessings pronounced on each part of the body; and then to meet your companion in the temple lobby and compare notes.  I think you’ll find that while the blessings are substantially the same, there are a couple of key differences.  Additionally, the stated reason why the initiatory must be done at all is slightly different for men versus for women (this is also mentioned during the first few minutes of the endowment).

Taken together, it seems to me that priesthood ordination imposes an active responsibility to preach truth and serve others beyond the immediate family circle.  Both parents have an obligation to be kings/queens and priests/priestesses to their own progeny—but ordained priesthood holders have an added obligation to help their fellowmen create new “kingdoms” ex nihilo; and they are accountable before God if they shirk that duty.  Priesthood ordination, properly understood in light of the oath and covenant of the priesthood, makes it a heckuva lot harder to say “no” when your bishop or quorum president gives you a call (or calling).

I think that in a traditional nuclear family structure, it makes sense that we wouldn’t impose that external burden on both the husband and the wife—at least, not while young children remain in the home to be cared for.  Child-rearing is, to some degree, in direct competition with the priesthood obligations that necessarily pull a parent out of the home.

Given changing family structures, increased lifespans (where people remain healthy long after their children have left the home), and a (perhaps?) growing proportion of women in the Church who for whatever reason never become mothers—I can visualize a situation where the Lord allows the Church to begin ordaining women in the next few decades.  But I think we would have to do a good bit of re-imagining the way we balance family and church service obligations.  (Which—coincidentally or not—has been happening over the past couple years with shorter church services, home church, Come Follow Me and a revamped youth program, and now COVID).  And (IMHO) there are also quite a few people who see priesthood ordination as primarily a matter of secular power (“we should be able to control budgets like the men do!”  “We should be able to run meetings!”  “We should be seen giving orders and having those orders followed!”) who I don’t think should be allowed within fifty feet of a Bishop’s office.  But coincidentally (or not), many of the Church members who most perseverate on the external trappings of priesthood authority have been sent scurrying for the exits over the past 10 years due to the Church’s actions vis a vis LGBTQ and gender issues.

Maybe we’re being prepped for the ordination of women to the priesthood.  Or maybe not—maybe the position will still be “no, we’re still attached to the nuclear family model with lots of kids; and female ordination undermines that to an unacceptable degree”. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by mgy401

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now ask your brother-in-law or male neighbor, dad or grandpa, and father-in-law or brother-in-law, if they'd like to stay home with the kids while their wife is at a meeting for her calling or out doing visits, or service for those in the ward.

Happy to have the kids! Just this past Sunday, I offered to take the sons of a single mum in our ward to give her some time. I've done this a couple of times already. I love it!

There may be men in my ward who don't feel the same, but the ones I know best all do.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If I remember right, from the beginning Pres. Nelson said that it was acceptable to call members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Latter-day Saints.  Also, did you ever find where it says in the handbook that it's acceptable to use the term Mormon?  I can't find it in there.

Finally, isn't there precedent in the D&C for a revelation being rescinded because the members couldn't deal with it?  

It has been changed again. I had the reference (Section 38 rings a bell now that it was posted), but I couldn't find it in my notes today (I thought it was by the quote from Elder Oaks in 1988 I posted earlier). I remember being struck by it because, while the current wording is largely the same, it had a clause that said while the full name of the Church is preferable, it is also acceptable to say "Mormon" if that ends up being the best in that situation (something like that). That would have been around a year ago (I remember because it was fairly close to when schools were shut down in early March --- I'd say sometime in February when I added it to a notes file). I'll keep looking for it. 

The quiet, not-always-announced updating (addition, deletion, and changing of wording) of the handbook is at the epicenter of the November 2015 policy issue. If it was a bona fide revelation, why quietly add it to the handbook and fumble when it was leaked (I was a bishop at the time, and there were a couple of quick communications, both reacting to small firestorms, before the "settled" final policy that lasted for 3+ years. I recall the first communication to not have all its ducks in a row and need some tweaking)? Why not simply stand by it as a revelation? It was only ever President Nelson (then President of the Twelve) who referred to it as a revelation, first at the BYU-H devotional, and later in follow-ups. Elder Christofferson did a rather awkward scripted Q&A with KSL, the Deseret News, or Church Public Affairs (I don't remember which, but it was a scripted, friendly setting), but that was pretty much all that the Church said about it, beyond the letters and the handbook language.

I'm all for revelation being published and defended, provided that it is revelation. Sometimes, the "witness of results" makes it easier in hindsight than it is in real time. I think it would be great if concerns about the whole thing were to be addressed, but the conclusion to it has all the earmarks of PR: take the lumps, get it behind us, and move on. Don't talk about it or get pulled into the weeds, just let it die. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by rongo

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998.

The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church, Independence, Missouri) is not a version of Mormonism.  Indeed, they have become essentially a Protestant Church.  The impetus for that goes back to the end of WW II, when some leading elders of the RLDS Church used their GI Bill benefits to attend nearby St Paul School of Theology (Methodist), and the changes came steadily after that.  I know one of the women who was ordained to Community of Christ priesthood -- she was a fellow student in a theology class I attended at the Univ of Missouri Kansas City.  She married a running partner of mine, also an RLDS priesthood holder.  The year when women in the RLDS Church actually recd the priesthood was much earlier, 1984, and based on a revelation that year to Wally B. Smith,  a direct descendant of Joseph Smith Jr.

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

Ain't gonna happen.

[AtlanticMike]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church, Independence, Missouri) is not a version of Mormonism.  Indeed, they have become essentially a Protestant Church.  The impetus for that goes back to the end of WW II, when some leading elders of the RLDS Church used their GI Bill benefits to attend nearby St Paul School of Theology (Methodist), and the changes came steadily after that.  I know one of the women who was ordained to Community of Christ priesthood -- she was a fellow student in a theology class I attended at the Univ of Missouri Kansas City.  She married a running partner of mine, also an RLDS priesthood holder.  The year when women in the RLDS Church actually recd the priesthood was much earlier, 1984, and based on a revelation that year to Wally B. Smith,  a direct descendant of Joseph Smith Jr.

Ain't gonna happen.

"Ain't gonna happen" I would've agreed with you 2 months ago before coming onto this board and also researching mormon history. 2 months ago I didnt realize how much mormons are obsessed with being thought of as Christian's. To me, it's almost become priority #1. Discouraging the use of the word "mormon" was a huge step, personally, I think it was done because to some, the word mormon keeps us from being accepted as "true Christians." Remember though, I'm an east coast mormon, so I dont know if it's different in Utah. 

    Now, women and the priesthood,  I say it's going to happen. It almost has to. First example, on fair mormon you'll find 3 first presidency letters talking about the priesthood ban. The 1st is from 1949 and it states that the attitude toward blacks remains as it always has, IT IS NOT a matter of declaration of a policy but of direct commandment. And yes, it does say, "at the present time", I understand that. But then it states that the reason for the ban. It states blacks are cursed with a skin of blackness  because their fathers rejected the priesthood,  something we totally reject today. The wording in the 1969 letter is softened,  then the letter from 1978 is softened even more to the point of blacks receiving the priesthood. And yes sir, I understand from the beginning of Mormonism, prophets taught eventually blacks would receive the priesthood at some point, but that's not the issue to me, it's that for 140 years blackskin was seen as a curse through doctrine. If an entire race can be seen as cursed and now not seen as cursed, then anything can change, including women recieving the priesthood. I think it's actually been happening for years, people just aren't seeing it for some reason. It's a slow and methodical process because the brethren understand human nature, they know women recieving the priesthood isn't something you can just one day spring on 16 million people and expect them to accept it on faith.

    Lastly, a women president of the United States will most likely speed up the process and give the brethren a soft landing for acceptance of a new priesthood policy. Just my opinion Robert. I've really grown to enjoy your post, your really knowledgeable. Thanks for responding. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Rain]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

"Ain't gonna happen" I would've agreed with you 2 months ago before coming onto this board and also researching mormon history. 2 months ago I didnt realize how much mormons are obsessed with being thought of as Christian's. To me, it's almost become priority #1. Discouraging the use of the word "mormon" was a huge step, personally, I think it was done because to some, the word mormon keeps us from being accepted as "true Christians." Remember though, I'm an east coast mormon, so I dont know if it's different in Utah. 

The Book of Mormon talks about members of the church being "christian".  Because of this and our beliefs I always felt we were.

It never became a big deal to me till I went on my mission to Texas and Louisiana where people accused us of not being christian.  Then in later years I got a lot of that on message boards.

So it's not really an obsession.  It is just trying to confront the accusations that often stop people from looking into the church or stop them from working with us.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

    Now, women and the priesthood,  I say it's going to happen. It almost has to. First example, on fair mormon you'll find 3 first presidency letters talking about the priesthood ban. The 1st is from 1949 and it states that the attitude toward blacks remains as it always has, IT IS NOT a matter of declaration of a policy but of direct commandment. And yes, it does say, "at the present time", I understand that. But then it states that the reason for the ban. It states blacks are cursed with a skin of blackness  because their fathers rejected the priesthood,  something we totally reject today. The wording in the 1969 letter is softened,  then the letter from 1978 is softened even more to the point of blacks receiving the priesthood. And yes sir, I understand from the beginning of Mormonism, prophets taught eventually blacks would receive the priesthood at some point, but that's not the issue to me, it's that for 140 years blackskin was seen as a curse through doctrine. If an entire race can be seen as cursed and now not seen as cursed, then anything can change, including women recieving the priesthood. I think it's actually been happening for years, people just aren't seeing it for some reason. It's a slow and methodical process because the brethren understand human nature, they know women recieving the priesthood isn't something you can just one day spring on 16 million people and expect them to accept it on faith.

    Lastly, a women president of the United States will most likely speed up the process and give the brethren a soft landing for acceptance of a new priesthood policy. Just my opinion Robert. I've really grown to enjoy your post, your really knowledgeable. Thanks for responding. 

 

[AtlanticMike]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

The Book of Mormon talks about members of the church being "christian".  Because of this and our beliefs I always felt we were.

It never became a big deal to me till I went on my mission to Texas and Louisiana where people accused us of not being christian.  Then in later years I got a lot of that on message boards.

So it's not really an obsession.  It is just trying to confront the accusations that often stop people from looking into the church or stop them from working with us.

 

Thank you rain, I love finding out how other people see Mormonism. Its weird because is see my self as mormon, not Christian, I understand we are Christians because of our belief in Christ, but I'm proud of being mormon. I love the word mormon, it brings me comfort.

   Maybe its because of my family makeup. All I've ever experienced is Christian's bashing mormons. I went to school with just a handful of mormons. I have never felt shame from being mormon, so I consider myself a mormon first, then possibly Christian. Personally,  I dont care if people see me as a Christian. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

"Ain't gonna happen" I would've agreed with you 2 months ago before coming onto this board and also researching mormon history. 2 months ago I didnt realize how much mormons are obsessed with being thought of as Christian's. To me, it's almost become priority #1. Discouraging the use of the word "mormon" was a huge step, personally, I think it was done because to some, the word mormon keeps us from being accepted as "true Christians." Remember though, I'm an east coast mormon, so I dont know if it's different in Utah. 

    Now, women and the priesthood,  I say it's going to happen. It almost has to. First example, on fair mormon you'll find 3 first presidency letters talking about the priesthood ban. The 1st is from 1949 and it states that the attitude toward blacks remains as it always has, IT IS NOT a matter of declaration of a policy but of direct commandment. And yes, it does say, "at the present time", I understand that. But then it states that the reason for the ban. It states blacks are cursed with a skin of blackness  because their fathers rejected the priesthood,  something we totally reject today. The wording in the 1969 letter is softened,  then the letter from 1978 is softened even more to the point of blacks receiving the priesthood. And yes sir, I understand from the beginning of Mormonism, prophets taught eventually blacks would receive the priesthood at some point, but that's not the issue to me, it's that for 140 years blackskin was seen as a curse through doctrine. If an entire race can be seen as cursed and now not seen as cursed, then anything can change, including women recieving the priesthood. I think it's actually been happening for years, people just aren't seeing it for some reason. It's a slow and methodical process because the brethren understand human nature, they know women recieving the priesthood isn't something you can just one day spring on 16 million people and expect them to accept it on faith.

    Lastly, a women president of the United States will most likely speed up the process and give the brethren a soft landing for acceptance of a new priesthood policy. Just my opinion Robert. I've really grown to enjoy your post, your really knowledgeable. Thanks for responding. 

I think you unfairly mischaracterize the full intent of emphasizing the correct name of the Church by singling out one (the misapprehension of others) of many reasons as an obsession. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

While I can see some cultural differences between “Utah” Saints and those living in other parts of the world, I’m a easterner and would not describe them as obsessive on this point, nor would I describe the emphasis of the name of the Church as a cultural issue. Can you provide some examples where a cultural attitude would be considered “obsessive”, particularly in the realm of religion?

You use an historical social model and the brethren’s understanding of human nature as the bases for the evolution of our doctrine, and projections for female priesthood office. What do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in our doctrine, or even in the current place we are for not ordaining women?

[Tacenda]

Listened to a podcast with this gal. She has a website: https://www.breakingdownpatriarchy.com/ I believe she's still LDS, I'm not sure how active. She mentioned speaking at Stanford for the first time discussing patriarchy and as she was waiting to speak she mentioned several men in suits walked in, and they were the local LDS leaders. She said they were like kryptonite and she immediately felt her power leave. She regained it enough to speak but afterward she said the men came up to her and told her that someone might contact her about what she'd said and that they didn't agree with her or something, one of them later apologized through email. She wrote an article a while back, I may have shared it on the board, about swapping the girl with the boy, and the girls and the women instead held the priesthood. Anyway, I thought it interesting. 

But what I'd like to put forth is, if the PH were given to women, couldn't it be a case by case basis just like for men, not all are called to bishop, stake president etc. I think there are women who could be in her prime or after she'd raised the children, or have a husband that does the main portion of that. There are men that would enjoy that, Hamba? Anyway, I think it's not all black and white. Maybe give more women responsibility for making decisions etc. There are single women as well, and women in general get lots of inspired revelation, their voices should be heard. I know they do to an extent, but more authority per se?

I'm on my way to work, I might have to edit or add to this later. The link to this gal's podcast is a good one, she studied patriarchy in depth, and it may help the men understand a little better, and she says patriarchy can harm men as well.  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

2 months ago I didnt realize how much mormons are obsessed with being thought of as Christian's. To me, it's almost become priority #1. Discouraging the use of the word "mormon" was a huge step, personally, I think it was done because to some, the word mormon keeps us from being accepted as "true Christians." Remember though, I'm an east coast mormon, so I dont know if it's different in Utah. 

I think you're mostly back in the 80s and 90s, for the most part.   This is still a hot issue for some, but I don't think it's on most Mormons' and evangelicals' radars any more (I've had evangelicals I interact agree on this). 

It is a major concern and annoyance for President Nelson, and has been since the late 1980s, but the "heyday" for being overly self-conscious about not being thought as Christian passed long ago, I think. I wonder if part of this is his experience in China? "Mor-mon" isn't a Chinese word, so it is sounded out in Chinese, and the characters for the name can literally mean "gates of hell," so that probably needs to be explained a lot when talking with people about the Church or Book of Mormon.  That might color wanting to de-emphasize that as much as possible. @smac97, did you encounter this in Taiwan (wasn't it Taiwan?)? 

I think Mormons and evangelicals both perceive that the bigger threat to both of them is secularism, skepticism, and irreligiosity. We have common cause and common ground in this, which is by far a bigger threat to our youth and young adults than "the Mormon menace" or "born-again Christians who say we're not Christian." 

Edited January 27, 2021 by rongo

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think you're mostly back in the 80s and 90s, for the most part.  

Maybe he's more like a "Utah Mormon" than he thinks LOL -- just kidding folks!

[AtlanticMike]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think you're mostly back in the 80s and 90s, for the most part.   This is still a hot issue for some, but I don't think it's on most Mormons' and evangelicals' radars any more (I've had evangelicals I interact agree on this). 

It is a major concern and annoyance for President Nelson, and has been since the late 1980s, but the "heyday" for being overly self-conscious about not being thought as Christian passed long ago, I think. I wonder if part of this is his experience in China? "Mor-mon" isn't a Chinese word, so it is sounded out in Chinese, and the characters for the name can literally mean "gates of hell," so that probably needs to be explained a lot when talking with people about the Church or Book of Mormon.  That might color wanting to de-emphasize that as much as possible. @smac97, did you encounter this in Taiwan (wasn't it Taiwan?)? 

I think Mormons and evangelicals both perceive that the bigger threat to both of them is secularism, skepticism, and irreligiosity. We have common cause and common ground in this, which is by far a bigger threat to our youth and young adults than "the Mormon menace" or "born-again Christians who say we're not Christian." 

Dang🤣🤣🤣🤣 you are 100% right! I do belong in the 90s. I often dream when I die and go to heaven everyone will be dressed like 90s rock/alternative bands and my favorite bands will be playing live 24/7. I know it'll happen 😁. Anyways, I agree most Christians are way more accepting of mormons, they almost have to be, Christianity is shrinking and is constantly under attack, so our "crazy mormon doctrine " isn't as important to them as it used to be. Today I think it's more important for them to concentrate on the similarities. That's a good thing! And in the end, I truly believe many Christian churches will rely heavily on Mormonism for strength. We're more organized, have more money and just all around badass individuals, we dont quit. I personally think the brethren will be a beacon of light to all Christians considering what we will be facing. 

[AtlanticMike]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Maybe he's more like a "Utah Mormon" than he thinks LOL -- just kidding folks!

I could be🤣. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you rain, I love finding out how other people see Mormonism. Its weird because is see my self as mormon, not Christian, I understand we are Christians because of our belief in Christ, but I'm proud of being mormon. I love the word mormon, it brings me comfort.

   Maybe its because of my family makeup. All I've ever experienced is Christian's bashing mormons. I went to school with just a handful of mormons. I have never felt shame from being mormon, so I consider myself a mormon first, then possibly Christian. Personally,  I dont care if people see me as a Christian. 

[in the following I’m being especially blunt to make a point]

This whole “are the Latter-Day Saints Christian?” debate is more nuanced than most seem to realize. The fact is that God himself (at the First Vision) testified the churches that fancy themselves to be authentically Christian actually aren’t authentically Christian (“their creeds are an abomination in my sight). So why would we Latter-day Saints think it’s terribly unfair when we aren’t included in the long list of apostate forms of Christianity when the fact is that we aren’t ‘Christian’ in the same apostate sense that they consider themselves to be Christian? So then, why should we feel miffed or slighted when we’re exclude?

The fact of the matter is that when we Latter-Day Saints say we are Christians we are championing a very different system of theology, soteriology, practice and worship. The resolution? Understand that when we Latter-Day Saints hear non-LDS Christians say we’re not Christian that they’re championing variations of an apostate system of religion. Meanwhile, we Latter-Day Saints can clarify our position by simply saying we are believers in ‘Restored New Testament Christianity’, or the Church of Christ as it existed when it was still led by living, divinely authorized apostles and prophets.

Edited January 27, 2021 by teddyaware

[AtlanticMike]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you unfairly mischaracterize the full intent of emphasizing the correct name of the Church by singling out one (the misapprehension of others) of many reasons as an obsession. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

While I can see some cultural differences between “Utah” Saints and those living in other parts of the world, I’m a easterner and would not describe them as obsessive on this point, nor would I describe the emphasis of the name of the Church as a cultural issue. Can you provide some examples where a cultural attitude would be considered “obsessive”, particularly in the realm of religion?

You use an historical social model and the brethren’s understanding of human nature as the bases for the evolution of our doctrine, and projections for female priesthood office. What do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in our doctrine, or even in the current place we are for not ordaining women?

The first thing I offer is just my gut feeling. Also, a couple weeks ago I started researching blacks and the priesthood and through that I found 100s of letters written to a man named Stuart Udall, I think he was the secretary of the interior in the 60s. He apparently put pressure on the brethren to rethink the priesthood ban and many members disliked him for it. But after reading the letters the members personally wrote to udall, it reminded me of conversations on this board. Apparently alot of mormons back then saw the priesthood ban as doctrine. 

   End the end, I have faith the brethren will not alienate us mormons from the rest of society like many other branches of Mormonism find themselves. I personally believe we are just beginning and the changes are going to be huge, big enough to make Christianity take a second look while they're desperation grows.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

"Ain't gonna happen" I would've agreed with you 2 months ago before coming onto this board and also researching mormon history. 2 months ago I didnt realize how much mormons are obsessed with being thought of as Christian's.

I don't think this is fairly characterized as an "obsess{ion}."  There is nothing wrong with protesting and refuting a lie told about me and mine, particularly when the lie is about something important.

Mike, if someone publicly and repeatedly accused you of not being an honest and decent person, and if that someone publicly repeated that accusation many times in many ways to many other people, would you do anything to challenge that accusation?  And if you did, would you find a secondary accusation of being "obsessed" about this to be a bit . . . odd?

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

To me, it's almost become priority #1.

I don't.  But I think rebutting a substantial and serious lie told about us is an appropriate thing to do.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Discouraging the use of the word "mormon" was a huge step, personally, I think it was done because to some, the word mormon keeps us from being accepted as "true Christians."

I dunno.  "Mormon" is on par with "Catholic" or "Methodist" or "Baptist."  

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Remember though, I'm an east coast mormon, so I dont know if it's different in Utah. 

Nobody goes around Utah with confusion about whether or not we believe in Jesus Christ.  But that happens in other places where the Church is less well known.

I served my mission in Taiwan some years ago.  the fundamental characterization of us as "Christian" (though not "Catholic" or "Protestant") was a real difficulty, largely due to linguistic issues (the generic term "Christian" was usually used to describe "Protestants") and cultural issues (most Taiwanese thing of Christianity in very generic terms, much like how we tend to think of Islam as being monolithic when it is actually anything but).  But when a Taiwanese person asked if I was a "Christian," I would certainly say "Yes."  Not because I was "obsessed" with it, but because being followers of Jesus Christ is the core of our identity.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 Now, women and the priesthood,  I say it's going to happen. It almost has to.

We'll see, I suppose.  

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

First example, on fair mormon you'll find 3 first presidency letters talking about the priesthood ban. The 1st is from 1949 and it states that the attitude toward blacks remains as it always has, IT IS NOT a matter of declaration of a policy but of direct commandment. And yes, it does say, "at the present time", I understand that. But then it states that the reason for the ban. It states blacks are cursed with a skin of blackness  because their fathers rejected the priesthood,  something we totally reject today. The wording in the 1969 letter is softened,  then the letter from 1978 is softened even more to the point of blacks receiving the priesthood.

Decent points, these.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

And yes sir, I understand from the beginning of Mormonism, prophets taught eventually blacks would receive the priesthood at some point, but that's not the issue to me,

I think it should be an important consideration to keep in mind, together with the lack of revelatory provenance for the ban, and also the ordinations of Elijah Able and his sons (and a few others).

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

it's that for 140 years blackskin was seen as a curse through doctrine.

I think the ban lacked revelatory provenance, and the explanations for it therefore arose.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

If an entire race can be seen as cursed and now not seen as cursed, then anything can change, including women recieving the priesthood.

If it is part of the Lord's plan, then I will be all for it.

I just don't think it's part of the Lord's plan.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I think it's actually been happening for years, people just aren't seeing it for some reason. It's a slow and methodical process because the brethren understand human nature, they know women recieving the priesthood isn't something you can just one day spring on 16 million people and expect them to accept it on faith.

I don't think such a process is under way.  

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Lastly, a women president of the United States will most likely speed up the process and give the brethren a soft landing for acceptance of a new priesthood policy. Just my opinion Robert. I've really grown to enjoy your post, your really knowledgeable. Thanks for responding. 

We'll see.  

My concern is not as much about what will happen if there is a new priesthood policy, but what will happen if there is not.  We saw how the Ordain Women group's my-way-or-the-highway approach worked out.  Not very good at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this is fairly characterized as an "obsess{ion}."  There is nothing wrong with protesting and refuting a lie told about me and mine, particularly when the lie is about something important.

Mike, if someone publicly and repeatedly accused you of not being an honest and decent person, and if that someone publicly repeated that accusation many times in many ways to many other people, would you do anything to challenge that accusation?  And if you did, would you find a secondary accusation of being "obsessed" about this to be a bit . . . odd?

I don't.  But I think rebutting a substantial and serious lie told about us is an appropriate thing to do.

I dunno.  "Mormon" is on par with "Catholic" or "Methodist" or "Baptist."  

Nobody goes around Utah with confusion about whether or not we believe in Jesus Christ.  But that happens in other places where the Church is less well known.

I served my mission in Taiwan some years ago.  the fundamental characterization of us as "Christian" (though not "Catholic" or "Protestant") was a real difficulty, largely due to linguistic issues (the generic term "Christian" was usually used to describe "Protestants") and cultural issues (most Taiwanese thing of Christianity in very generic terms, much like how we tend to think of Islam as being monolithic when it is actually anything but).  But when a Taiwanese person asked if I was a "Christian," I would certainly say "Yes."  Not because I was "obsessed" with it, but because being followers of Jesus Christ is the core of our identity.

We'll see, I suppose.  

Decent points, these.

I think it should be an important consideration to keep in mind, together with the lack of revelatory provenance for the ban, and also the ordinations of Elijah Able and his sons (and a few others).

I think the ban lacked revelatory provenance, and the explanations for it therefore arose.

If it is part of the Lord's plan, then I will be all for it.

I just don't think it's part of the Lord's plan.

I don't think such a process is under way.  

We'll see.  

My concern is not as much about what will happen if there is a new priesthood policy, but what will happen if there is not.  We saw how the Ordain Women group's my-way-or-the-highway approach worked out.  Not very good at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really need to learn how to break down people's remarks like you do so I can respond better. But here goes my jumbled paragraph instead. I understand everything your saying except your first response. Who's accusing you of not being honest, me, or are you saying Christians do that? Because if its Christian's, who cares. This is what's so confusing to me. Joseph prays, god says all are abominations, here Joseph, restore my true gospel instead of joining the Methodist or Presbyterians. And now today, it seems to me we want more than ever to be welcomed into their tent. I guess I'm just confused. I dont want to be in their tent, I like our tent, its roomy, the doors open, they can come in, and like I said, I think ultimately they will. They dont have enough money to fight what's coming.

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

The first thing I offer is just my gut feeling. Also, a couple weeks ago I started researching blacks and the priesthood and through that I found 100s of letters written to a man named Stuart Udall, I think he was the secretary of the interior in the 60s. He apparently put pressure on the brethren to rethink the priesthood ban and many members disliked him for it. But after reading the letters the members personally wrote to udall, it reminded me of conversations on this board. Apparently alot of mormons back then saw the priesthood ban as doctrine. 

   End the end, I have faith the brethren will not alienate us mormons from the rest of society like many other branches of Mormonism find themselves. I personally believe we are just beginning and the changes are going to be huge, big enough to make Christianity take a second look while they're desperation grows.

I find nothing wrong with gut feelings and bias that open the door for discussion, evaluation, and the ineffectual piling up of evidence and rationale retroactively justifying the bias – the Udall correspondence a case in point. Sometimes gut feelings and bias change, not because of the evidence but because of far more fundamental things.

But my question was not on Church social dynamics large and small. It was: What do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in our doctrine, whether not ordaining women in the present per your thread topic, or ordaining Blacks, per your comparison?

Also, please clarify your last statement – what are you saying Christianity is taking a second look at, and whose desperation is growing?

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But what I'd like to put forth is, if the PH were given to women, couldn't it be a case by case basis just like for men, not all are called to bishop, stake president etc. I think there are women who could be in her prime or after she'd raised the children, or have a husband that does the main portion of that. There are men that would enjoy that, Hamba? Anyway, I think it's not all black and white. Maybe give more women responsibility for making decisions etc. There are single women as well, and women in general get lots of inspired revelation, their voices should be heard. I know they do to an extent, but more authority per se?

One can never say “never”, in a Church that acknowledges and seeks modern revelation.  But one of the issues “situational ordination” could create, is that it would be in tension with the way Mormons have traditionally viewed priesthood.  The traditional view is that those who are eligible for priesthood ordination and service, have an affirmative duty to qualify themselves for it and are considered woe-stricken if they fail to obtain their ordination (see, e.g., D&C 84:42).  
 

To the degree that Mormon culture has a strong sense of communitarianism and self-sacrifice, I think the universal (within a certain gender group, obviously!) obligation to enter into priesthood service contributes a great deal to that; and it would be interesting to see whether/how our culture changed if we morphed our current perception of priesthood duty to more of an “I’ll serve if/when I feel like it” ethos. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by mgy401

[Rain]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you rain, I love finding out how other people see Mormonism. Its weird because is see my self as mormon, not Christian, I understand we are Christians because of our belief in Christ, but I'm proud of being mormon. I love the word mormon, it brings me comfort.

   Maybe its because of my family makeup. All I've ever experienced is Christian's bashing mormons. I went to school with just a handful of mormons. I have never felt shame from being mormon, so I consider myself a mormon first, then possibly Christian. Personally,  I dont care if people see me as a Christian. 

I see myself as both, but Christian means more to me because the point of our whole religion is based on what Christ did for us.  Without Him we are nothing.

I do care if people see us as Christian when I think about other people because if they don't then they may not seek to learn more.  They may stop others from learning more. 

But then I don't care when only considering myself.  For one thing their definition of Christian may not fit me and I absolutely think they should have that right.  But also when it comes down to it, it is only between me and God.