Women leaders ordered off the stand

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

And the Ward clerk who is taking notes. I remember there used to be a special desk on the stand just for the ward clerk to sit at.

There is still that desk in our ward, but in the 10 years that I’ve been attending, I’ve never seen anybody actually sit up there. Until you mentioned it, I had forgotten that that used to be a thing.

[BRMC]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Yes, but Oaks doesn’t cite a source. He’s not saying God told him or a prophet not to ordain women. There’s no such record anywhere in scripture or church history. What he’s conveying (sincerely I believe) is his understanding that the restriction is divinely directed. But again, he has no source for that. So this statement is of little weight. 

Prior leaders also thought the racial restriction (no African men ordained until all men without African blood had an opportunity) was divinely directed only to change their view when a greater light was shown. 
 

And D/C 1:38 doesn’t turn church leaders into God or deem all their words as scripture. What it does is instruct that God may work through His servants and that He adopts their acts when done in the course of their authority and His direction. But, again, it doesn’t mean every statement or direction by a leader binds God. Leaders make mistakes all the time. Hence all things are ratified in the church by commmon consent. 

And you don't have ANYTHING that supports your desire to ordain women.  Much has been presented in this thread to suggest that isn't something Heavenly Father wants you to be obsessed with.

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But he's all we have for now. What else would you suggest we do? 

I would suggest we mature beyond our comfort zones so that changes needed can occur. 

[Mark Beesley]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I respectfully disagree with the suggested notion that the prophet is a perfect representation of all Gods positions, or that we are just pawns in Gods game without our agency marring opportunities. 
 

And I have no doubt that my sins are a significant contribution to what we lack. 

Well, you wrote that you wished we could get out of God’s way so He could show us a better way. I responded by referencing that God gives us a prophet to do exactly what you suggested.  Your retort is to diminish the role of the Lord’s prophet. So, since you want the Lord to show us a better way, and you seemingly distrust the prophet to transmit the Lord’s Will, am I to conclude that you will not accept the order in the Church unless Jesus Christ personally comes down to direct the affairs of the Church? So, no possibility of a change in women ordinations until the Second Coming?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, BRMC said:

And you don't have ANYTHING that supports your desire to ordain women.  Much has been presented in this thread to suggest that isn't something Heavenly Father wants you to be obsessed with.

This seems silly given the Bible records female prophets, apostles and deacons. 

[Mark Beesley]

Just now, MustardSeed said:

I would suggest we mature beyond our comfort zones so that changes needed can occur. 

What change is needed, and why?

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This seems silly given the Bible records female prophets, apostles and deacons. 

Seems silly to you, maybe.  Didn't seem silly to those called by God to speak for him on Earth.   Didn't seem silly to Christ when he restored His church through the prophet.

Edited November 26, 2023 by BRMC

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Yes, but Oaks doesn’t cite a source. He’s not saying God told him or a prophet not to ordain women. There’s no such record anywhere in scripture or church history. What he’s conveying (sincerely I believe) is his understanding that the restriction is divinely directed. But again, he has no source for that. So this statement is of little weight. 

Prior leaders also thought the racial restriction (no African men ordained until all men without African blood had an opportunity) was divinely directed only to change their view when a greater light was shown. 

Oaks is a prophet of God, so he is the source. Until something different comes along we have to go with what he and other current church leaders are saying. What else would you suggest we do? 

Quote

And D/C 1:38 doesn’t turn church leaders into God or deem all their words as scripture

It doesn't say it turns them into God. But Yes it does deem their words as the word of God and is therefore scripture. We have nothing else to go on besides that.

Edited November 26, 2023 by JAHS

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

What change is needed, and why?

I don’t trust you to share my needs. I think you dismiss me. 

[Mark Beesley]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t trust you to share my needs. I think you dismiss me. 

I am sorry, I did not think we were talking about personal needs. I thought the discussion was about institutional needs. My mistake. Carry on. You are dismissed. 🤣🤣🤣

[MustardSeed]

I am a woman in the institution. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Seems silly to you, maybe.  Didn't seem silly to those called by God to speak for him on Earth.   Didn't seem silly to Christ when he restored His church through the prophet.

Maybe take it up with your God, who according to your Bible, called women to be prophets? Or called a woman apostle?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRv9m3Ja/

 

It seems ridiculously silly to say there is no reason to support women ordination when it’s apparently been done before. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I would suggest we mature beyond our comfort zones so that changes needed can occur. 

You would have to define "mature" and by whose definition, the worlds? I don't think so. If God decides we have "matured" enough (whatever that means) He will let us know how and what to change, but that has to come through our prophets.

There aren't enough faithful members of the church yet who could bear such a change.  
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16: 12)

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, BRMC said:

And you don't have ANYTHING that supports your desire to ordain women.  Much has been presented in this thread to suggest that isn't something Heavenly Father wants you to be obsessed with.

Of course I do. My desire is my desire. I can explain (as I’ve done) but I alone have the authority to declare it.
 

And it’s not an obsession. I’m very active and content in the church while patiently waiting on other hearts to change. I don’t protest, but do share my desires at the right time with those who are contemplating the issue and care what I think. It’s mostly family and close friends. 
 

As one example of how the change is happening, I stopped attending endowment sessions for a couple years because I couldn’t get comfortable with the obligation for wives to obey their husbands. I continued to keep my recommend and attended youth baptisms in the course of my calling. At times there were questions from friends and church leaders regarding why I didn’t attend the endowment. I lovingly explained why not. Then out of the blue (to me at least) came a change to the endowment to remove to obedience obligation. I’ve attended ever since.
 

Do I think I alone led to the change? Of course not. But I do think my voice was one of many that led leaders to question the obedience obligation and make divinely-inspired changes. As a people, we can repent and the restoration moves on. If women’s ordination leads to good fruit, I’m content we’ll eventually embrace it. 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Maybe take it up with your God, who according to your Bible, called women to be prophets? Or called a woman apostle?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRv9m3Ja/

 

It seems ridiculously silly to say there is no reason to support women ordination when it’s apparently been done before. 

"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom 16: 7)

No one knows for sure if Junia was a woman. A lot of debate on that one. And anyone can be called a prophet without holding the priesthood.

[BRMC]

Just now, JAHS said:

"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom 16: 7)

No one knows for sure if Junia was a woman. A lot of debate on that one. And anyone can be called a prophet without holding the priesthood.

There's also a lot of speculation about what that even means.  Deseret.com   Personally, I don't get my gospel study from random people on TikTok.

[BRMC]

27 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Of course I do. My desire is my desire. I can explain (as I’ve done) but I alone have the authority to declare it.
 

And it’s not an obsession. I’m very active and content in the church while patiently waiting on other hearts to change. I don’t protest, but do share my desires at the right time with those who are contemplating the issue and care what I think. It’s mostly family and close friends. 
 

As one example of how the change is happening, I stopped attending endowment sessions for a couple years because I couldn’t get comfortable with the obligation for wives to obey their husbands. I continued to keep my recommend and attended youth baptisms in the course of my calling. At times there were questions from friends and church leaders regarding why I didn’t attend the endowment. I lovingly explained why not. Then out of the blue (to me at least) came a change to the endowment to remove to obedience obligation. I’ve attended ever since.
 

Do I think I alone led to the change? Of course not. But I do think my voice was one of many that led leaders to question the obedience obligation and make divinely-inspired changes. As a people, we can repent and the restoration moves on. If women’s ordination leads to good fruit, I’m content we’ll eventually embrace it. 

That's fair.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, BRMC said:

There's also a lot of speculation about what that even means.  Deseret.com   Personally, I don't get my gospel study from random people on TikTok.

Kind of circular isn’t then. Step one: determine that female ordination didn’t exist. Step two, reinterpret the plain language of the text to support your predetermined beliefs. Glad it works for you 👍

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Kind of circular isn’t then. Step one: determine that female ordination didn’t exist. Step two, reinterpret the plain language of the text to support your predetermined beliefs. Glad it works for you 👍

OR a return to the original writings, hence a "restored gospel".   Like I said, I don't get my spiritual study from TikTok.  I get it from those the Lord appointed in these Latter-days.  When President Nelson sends me a snapchat I'll be all in.  Until then, YMMV.   Good luck with your pursuit.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, BRMC said:

OR a return to the original writings, hence a "restored gospel".   Like I said, I don't get my spiritual study from TikTok.  I get it from those the Lord appointed in these Latter-days.  When President Nelson sends me a snapchat I'll be all in.  Until then, YMMV.   Good luck with your pursuit.

Prophets of God stated with authority that the priesthood and temple ban went back to Joseph Smith. Until the historians (under threat of church disciple) showed the historical record clearly showed otherwise. In this case the data won over dogma and Black people are now allowed temple privileges. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Mark Beesley]

52 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I am a woman in the institution. 

I am sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of your biological sex. That may be easier to understand if you go back and review the genesis of this thread and the discussions about personal recognition and the Lord’s counsel.

[Mark Beesley]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Prophets of God stated with authority that the priesthood and temple ban went back to Joseph Smith. Until the historians (under threat of church disciple) showed the historical record clearly showed otherwise. In this case the data won over dogma and Black people are now allowed temple privileges. 

Wrong! Your revisionist history is rather transparent.

[BRMC]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Prophets of God stated with authority that the priesthood and temple ban went back to Joseph Smith. Until the historians (under threat of church disciple) showed the historical record clearly showed otherwise. In this case the data won over dogma and Black people are now allowed temple privileges. 

🙄

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Wrong! Your revisionist history is rather transparent.

I would love for you to show me where precisely. If you can.

First presidency statement of 1949:

”The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization,”

Lester Bush’s influence showing how wrong this statement was:

https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wordpress.com/the-role-and-impact-of-lester-bushs-scholarship-on-blacks-and-priesthood/
 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BRMC]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would love for you to show me where precisely. If you can.

First presidency statement of 1949:

”The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization,”

Lester Bush’s influence showing how wrong this statement was:

https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wordpress.com/the-role-and-impact-of-lester-bushs-scholarship-on-blacks-and-priesthood/
 

 

You're using something that is accepted as true to prove a statement that isn't.